The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frak (expletive)[edit]

Frak (expletive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable dicdef, the rest is WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agreed with the OR concern so I have undertaken a small cleanup. What's left is not substantial, yet I can see many references to this terminology dating back quite some time (google news of the archives returns relevant results). I think it's notable in a niche sense (particularly in the video game industry or certain television series) and I am seeing enough on searches that seems to suggest it has a usage history. Page views seem fairly modest too (i.e. it doesn't seem to be that obscure). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much everything in the "Other uses" section, and the 2nd paragraph of the lede is WP:SYNTH and should be removed. The last sentence of the lede is trivia also and shouldn't be in the article. There is no evidence that those uses of "Frak" are linked to the Battlestar Galactica one. They could very well have arisen independently of one another. "Etymology" is the only real content in the article worth keeping and that's small enough that it doesn't need its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the "other uses" section is now that bad. I have no personal experience with the term or really care too much if it gets deleted or not, hence why I did a search including archive news/sources which did return relevant results over a reasonable period of time. My own judgement was based on those search results, coupled with the consistent page views and a potential for someone who cares to develop the article to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.