Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  The mere assertion that the subject is "not notable" is unconvincing when discussing a neutrally written, multiply reliably referenced article. Also, WP:BLP is not violated by this list, inter alia because it is adequately referenced and does not serve primarily to mock or disparage its subjects. The valid "delete" arguments, of which too few have been made, focus on issues pertaining to our project's scope, as reflected in WP:NOT / WP:NOT. Sandstein (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

List of people who have been pied
Please note that this has previously been nominated a bit over a year ago. I hope that times have changed for Wikipedia, as I see little to no value in providing a list of people who have been "pied", quite the contrary actually and I think WP:BLP would advise against such a list. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) *Merge and redirect to pieing. Keep per below. It does happen, as with Bill Gates, and as someone points out, it's a form of assault that is used to get publicity (and it usually works because the evidence of the assault is so visible). Analogies to swirlies and Three Stooges are kind of humorous, but not relevant. The incidents enumerated here are not at all funny. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Not notable, unless you are a Moe Howard fan. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep far too big to merge which is the likely reason it has a seperate article in the first place. Seems full sourced. Confirmed. this is a fork of Pieing -- neon white  user page talk 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- Not very notable but well-referenced.-- Jerrch 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep No argument made as to what part of this article violates WP:BLP (in fact, I think it supports it very nicely), or what has changed on wikipedia since it was previously nominated. Notability of topics for articles depends on the number of third parity reliable sources discussing it. The article is very well sourced and interesting. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Makes about as much sense as List of people who have had their tires slashed or List of people who have been given swirlies.  Not even encyclopedic enough a topic to mention in the subjects' own articles, much less in its own list.  KleenupKrew (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If either of those had multiple notable cases that have been reoprted by reliable sources then those article would be acceptable too. -- neon white user page talk 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pieing is historically an act to show political dissent in a very public way. That's why the list is of notable public figures (e.g. Bill Gates and Ralph Nader). If publically slashing tires or giving swirlies ever become a popular form of political protest (an idea I'm not completely opposed to :), it would be reasonable to have an article on it. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * List of people who have had their houses picketed, then. Pieing is like any other form of protest - usually not notable.  What is it about pieing that gives it any special importance over other non-notable protest gestures by non-notable people? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is reported in multiple verifiable sources making it notable. This is what notability is based upon. -- neon white user page talk 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the sources cited in this article. Out of 71 citations I see exactly 10 to notable, reliable sources: 3 to CBS News, 2 to abc.au, 1 to the CBC, 1 to UPI, and 3 to local media outlets in Cincinnati, Providence, and Grand Rapids.  Of the rest, 17 cite to a single anarchist "pieing" advocacy website, entartistes.ca, many others are to other non-notable or unreliable anarchist websites such as Indymedia, Eat the State, the Biotic Baking Brigade, and antimedia.net.  Other citations include blogs, YouTube, and Flickr. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found anarchist journalists to have surprising good reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. But, point taken. This is why we have -- Scarpy (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep its too big an article to merge, its also well referenced Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Too many references to call it not notable, well sourced, and a really good example of what a list should be. Merge would be too bulky for pieing. Jim Miller (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as this would be too big to merge, and it's well-sourced and notable enough to not delete. B figura  (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Utterly nn. Either delete or add the Piper of Hamelyn. Grutness...wha?  01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Because IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. I don't understand how this particular article meets notability criteria and the article would seem to be a spam magnet with many of it's "references" being to video and other media. Does List of people that have been egged exist? How about List of people that have been floured? List of people that have been covered in fake blood? If the pieing is notable it is easy enough to place the information in the individual's article. Just my thoughts Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is actually a fork from the main article due to size. -- neon white user page talk 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, well sourced and populated with notable people. "Pie in the face" is a notable (if silly) form of expression that receives great attention when it is applied to political leaders in particular. As with all these types of lists, should be policed to make sure no unverified claims are made (especially any that violate WP:BLP), but as it stands now it's sourced, a notable topic - that makes it viable. It could stand to use a better introduction, but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject, featuring notable people. One of the things (but not the only) that sets pieing apart from other possible forms of protest mentioned above is that there are groups set up specifically to engage in pieing and there are no such groups for those forms mentioned above (e.g., I’m not aware of any groups set up specifically for egging people in protest or slashing tires, etc.). Perhaps a more specific title for the article would be appropriate. Something along the lines of “Public figures and authorities who have been pied in protest” to clarify that pieings in slapstick performances and such is not within the article’s topic. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. An interesting list, populated with notable individuals and with information sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Most useful on Wikipedia.  Cirt (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh  20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh  20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - this list has an unambiguous selection criteria, clear scope, is verified by reliable sources and as the act is a well-defined and documented form of direct action, the list is non-frivolous. Skomorokh  20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep This list is about a milder form of political protest than List of assassinated people, but much better sourced than that list — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable list. Notability for the list criterion is not established, and I disagree that it is notable at all. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - both the activity of pieing and practitioners the Biotic Baking Brigade are both notable, as verified by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Specific pie incidents account for dozens of news articles in highly respected outlets (NYT, WaPo, SF Chronicle etc.): Google News results. How on earth is it non-notable?! Skomorokh  22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps pieing is notable, but that is not at issue. Why is a list of people who have been pied notable? What is notable about this list criterion, that these people so listed have been pied? It seems awfully arbitrary to group people according to this criterion. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is based on the number of independent third party reliable sources. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Response That is false, and contradicts WP:BLP and similar policies entirely. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's completely true. According to the general notability guideline a topic is presumed notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:BLP just builds on WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR with respect to articles about living people. Let me ask you this: if this was a list of people who are now dead who were pied while they were alive, would you still have issues with it? -- Scarpy (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, a trivia list article and therefore a violation of WP:TRIVIA. WillOakland (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's a shrewd argument. I just had a look at WP:TRIVIA and for the life of me I can't find anything in there about deleting articles with lists. I did find this advice pretty interesting: "In this guideline, the term 'trivia section' refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." -- Scarpy (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Lists as notability has been established through verifiable sources and persuasuive arguments made throughout this discussion. The discriminate topic has real world significance.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and well referenced. Ford MF (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * peeK no explainable reason to delete. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Delete per WP:BLP Sceptre (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be written from a NPOV to me. -- neon white user page talk 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Has it really come to this, an encyclopedia with a list of people being pied? Alientraveller (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this violates the Basic human dignity, since most of the enteries where pied in an act of protest rather than hijinks. They are also not notable "only" for the pieing, so the second part of that section is also not applicable.  Now I am not for Hijinks pieing beeing listed, so any enteries that fall under that catagory should probably be deleted as par Septers point, but the article itself does have scolorly merit...if you research protests and protest methods.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. When notable people are "pied" it's often newsworthy. That's evidence of its notability. This list is neutral and thoroughly sourced. It does not catalog derogatory information. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pie does not deprive one of basic human dignity.  As Skomorokh notes, pieing is a direct action.  I would suggest a compromise regarding those who feel there is a WP:BLP concern.  The list should be restricted to individuals who have articles independent of their having been pied.  If we include everyone who has been demonstrably pied the list would lose its point, and already includes too many irrelevant piefaces. --JayHenry (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Current article does not show criteria for inclusion; thus as it is, any person who was hit by a pie would be eligible for inclusion (we'll "overlook" the one entry of someone being hit by salad dressing, which, the last time I checked, was not a pie). As a result, this article would always be incomplete and impossible to maintain. B.Wind (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Many lists on Wikipedia will always be incomplete. That's why there's a standardized template to put at the top of the list. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That in itself is a nonissue. The more important one is the inclusion criteria for the list - there are none listed in the article, this making the issue of inclusion a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, there is no indication as to whether the contestants of Double Dare who were pied would be included, or virtually the entire cast of The Great Race or much of the cast of Blazing Saddles (amongst other motion pictures and television programs) would also be listed (and why or why not). The purpose of the template is bring to attention that an incomplete article should be brought to completion, not to identify or justify an article that would be impossible to be complete (which, by the way, is grounds for deletion). As the list article exists, it either violates the WP:NPOV policy or the guideline that indicates that an article that is impossible to complete shouldn't be kept. B.Wind (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This list was forked from the pieing article, which very explicitly discusses pieing in a political sense, the criteria from the list are implied from the article. The context is crystal clear. -- Scarpy (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Questionwhere did you find the guideline that said if an article is impossible to complete it should be deleted. I just have never run by that one, and find it waaaaaaaaayyyyyy to ambiguous (can any article really be complete?)  granted I am ignoring your blatent "either or" fallicy in logic which can be addressed after you answer this question.
 * I agree with Scarpy. This concern is purely hypothetical.  In actuality there's no ambiguity in this list, and thus we can conclude that the inclusion criteria is clear, if not yet articulated.  The distinction is between people who are pied as some sort of consensual entertainment and people who are not complicit in their pieing but rather were targeted as a form of direct action.  As with everything on Wikipedia, we can depend on reliable sources to make the determination for us.  That which can't be resolved with reliable sources (a minority of the cases, if any) should simply be removed.  The distinction between pieing qua culture jamming and qua slapstick is never ambiguous (although prohibiting the inclusion of people without articles would make this yet clearer). --JayHenry (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the template, but rather , which is for lists that can never be made complete (examples include List of Jewish anarchists, List of composers of African descent, and List of record labels). Where is the policy that says such lists can be deleted simply because they can't be made complete? WikiProject Lists indicates (correctly) that Wikipedia will always have incomplete lists. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Valid topic per Lists. Well-sourced article, notable topic and verifiable by reliable sources.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Hats off to Scarpy for his or her research. I am concerned that some of the BLP arguments are distortions of BLP's intent.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per Alientraveller. I don't care if it has 6,000 sources; having a pie thrown at one may generate a short burst of coverage, but its lasting impact is almost always zero, and if greater, can always be included in that individual's biography. Biruitorul (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2008 (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.