Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied


 * 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 keep. Certainly no consensus exists to delete, and some of the keep arguments are strong and not well refuted. Mango juice talk 17:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

List of people who have been pied

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated because there's no reason at all to list people who have had pies thrown at them. -Roofus 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why not have such a list. It's amusing. And the link-citations, when you click them, lead to interesting stories. This list originated as part of the Pieing article and was put here. It works in tandem with that article. I don't believe Roofus articulated why removing this list is recommended. He said "there's no reason at all." Can he elaborate? Griot 05:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a useful list, though it could use clean up. Add clean-up template remove deletion template. -- Craigtalbert 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Incredibly trivial, but extremely well cited and maintained, far more so than most lists that teeter on the listcruft edge. I'd say this is a good example of Ignore all rules. -Markeer 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see that that is not going to happen now, as my last two attempts at voting delete have been interrupted by keep votes. However I will still lay out my arguement that it is not encyclopedic. It could be the best article in the world, and I'd want it deleted. And speaking of Ignore all Rules, I'm struggling for not only a person to back me up, but a policy as well! I do not understand how a list on 'people who have been pied' is ever going to be useful, to be perfectly honest. I also do not see why it should be on Wikipedia. Remember, humourous as it may be, Wikipedia is not made for humour. However, I concede that this article is well done, so I wouldn't worry too much if it were to stay. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also not emotionally attached either way, and I can certainly see your point, but it seems to me that while there's no overwhelming argument to keep this article, there's also (oddly enough) no real guideline for deleting it. It's not a neoligism, it's not original research, it's not unverified and because someone seems to have done a great deal of work, it doesn't even fall into those vague concepts behind the term "listcruft" (e.g. unmanageable, POV, etc).  The closest valid guideline to delete that I can think of is Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but even then I can see at least a vague argument that as a split off of pieing it's not necessarily "indiscriminate".


 * As I say, I'm not emotionally attached to it and wouldn't cry if a deletion vote were to happen, but my opinion is -- lacking any strong valid argument to delete, it should be kept (with perhaps a passive and kindly-meant prod to this article's editors to focus their admirable editing energies to some other articles that need work). -Markeer 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider putting the remainder of the listing in the table format that was started.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but delete any uncited examples (like the dubious one for the White House plumber (???). I agree that this should also be reformatted into the chart that was started. "Pieing" or whatever the term is, has become a notable form of protest expression with enough media coverage to warrant a list of examples. The intro could be expanded a bit to set criteria so the list is restricted to politicians or notable personalities who have been pied in public, otherwise we could start seeing names added of actors who have received pies in the face in the movies. 23skidoo 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial. The above arguments that it is WP:USEFUL and WP:ITSFUNNY do not establish that the list is in any way encyclopedic.  A heavily modified and pared-down list of only the more significant 'victims' could be merged back in to the parent article but this list itself should not remain and is nothing more than a trivia repository.  The above keep votes have even conceded the fact that the article is trivial in nature. Arkyan 18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep though obviously restrict to new-making incidents, and the list itself needs some cleanup to make it consistent. Still, the fact is, being pied has made news in several cases, so the subject itself is not a problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: there is no reason to publicize and thereby encourage this type of assault. Conflict of interest warning: it's happened to me. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we better delete every article on every murder and war. We wouldn't want to encourage such behaviour. I'm sure that the people who pie other people do so in the hopes of being immortalized on Wikipedia. Otto4711 23:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was in 1981, so I'll give you that part. Newyorkbrad 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - if there's a list of more indiscriminate information, I've yet to find it. - fchd 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' BTW, I'd like to remind folks that AfD is not a vote. FrozenPurpleCube 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate information. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pieing has been a reasonably high-profile form of political protest, and the victims are generally quite notable.  Apologies to Newyorkbrad, and personally I think pieing is inappropriately violent not to mention juvenile, but the list is reasonable for wikipedia.  bikeable (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep what is indiscriminate information is not precisely defined, and this article does not fall under any of the obvious criteria at WP:NOT. This list is not too general or specific, and its content is verifiable. Claiming it is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is not a strong argument. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is an extension of pieing.  Also, pieing (and incidents of pieing) apparently seems to receive quite a bit of coverage.  I am unconvinced by arguments to delete, which so far have been WP:NOTUSEFUL (including the nom's reasoning), "no need reason to publicize and thereby encourage this type of assault" (I doubt people do things just so they can end up being mentioned on WP; it's much easier to just create a hoax article), and WP:NOT.  The last one is rooted in a guideline, but even a cursory examination of WP:NOT shows this list does not qualify any of the 8 categories of articles that are listed there as inappropriate.  On a different note, it may be appropriate to merge the info to Pieing (not too long an article) so that the content is better organized. -- Black Falcon 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, let's keep the funny stuff. We, and the world that provides us with material, can do better than this.DGG 23:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but delete any unsited information PTluw777 00:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wiki is not a directory of people who have been assaulted in public. Best case mergeto pieing. Ohconfucius 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subtrivial and crufty.  WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and all that. Dragomiloff 19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a subarticle of pieing, which makes for notable news events. Archiving a list of examples is encyclopedic, and it is neither unverifiable nor unmaintainable. –Pomte 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes it is a bit of a silly list, but it is obviously well done and well cared for, and does help to show how throughly pieing has become a form of protest. I will agree wit hthe above comment that it does need converting into the table format and needs some additional information/cites for some of the entries. Improbcat 15:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.