Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of acronyms involving the word "fuck"

WP:NOT, section 1.2.3, states that Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide (it's a sub-section of WP:NOT A Dictionary). This list constitutes a usage guide for slang and idioms. As such, its presence here is in violation of policy and it should be deleted. That's in addition to it suffering from the numerous problems inherent to stand-alone lists. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per The Literate Engineer. Friday 06:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a pretty intercoursingly silly article. Delete. -- Hoary 06:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per The Literate Engineer. --bainer (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is NFG. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. DMTsurel 13:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable, prone to vandalism. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We don't need to host school boy humour. Osomec 18:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. This sort of information should be available somewhere. We have forward indexes to profanity and acronyms; why not reverse indexes? Though this reverse index happens to be about a profane word, one could easily imagine similar reverse indexes about perfectly serious and boring words. I say keep it open to all words, on an equal basis. -- Beland 03:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Agreed. --Danielormsby 06:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 03:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I don't see anything wrong with this page.

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.