Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied (3rd 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

List of people who have been pied
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NOT. Jennavecia (Talk)  14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. When notable people are hit in the pie it is frequently newsworthy. I don't see anything in WP:NOT that specifically covers this. This article is a subartcile of pieing. It is an appropriate topic for a standalone list, WP:SALAT. It is well-sourced and neutral. The article was Afd'ed less than six months ago. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The part of NOT#IINFO that I believe applies is ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. And, to a degree, point 5. Not everyone on the list appears to be notable, nor are they all referenced. What encyclopedic value is there in a list of people who've gotten a pie to the face? That said, to be honest, I don't AFD much of anything ever, and did not realize that this had been AFDed before until it was already listed. I was a bit surprised, actually, that it had survived, much less twice. Also, I was unaware that there was a six-months between nominations standard. Not my normal side of the building, here, so to speak. Jennavecia  (Talk)  18:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I beg your pardon, but are you FUCKING serious??? Hell, I've been pied, it's nothing important, nothing newsworthy, and certainly not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Your face is sticky for five minutes before someone hands you a towel. People with cell phone cameras take your picture as you're covered in [pie filling/whipped cream/pudding/other crap] and slap it up on Youtube, people laugh for a minute or so at you, and they all move on. Forgotten the next day. For that matter, many of these are referenced to Youtube or other video sites, known as Bad Sites for being unreliable, poorly accessible for those with slow connections or inadequate plugins, and easily vandalized or just generally unstable. I can possibly see a short section in Biotic Baking Brigade for a list of people they have personally pied, since that is what they are known for, but people being pied by "16-year old boys", as one entry shows, is completely pointless. Oh, what a surprise, there's no reference for that one either, as well as five other entries. To that end, this list is completely unmaintainable. People get pied every damn day for random reasons. If one of them happens to have an article here, we're supposed to add them to this list just because someone threw a pastry in their direction? Heck no. We have better things to cover. This is a complete violation of WP:BLP; unless, for some astounding reason, the pieing has some actual lasting importance (and by that I mean more than a month), it's not even worth mentioning in the subject's own article. This is utterly, completely, and in every possible way, a ridiculous subject for a list. I rest my case. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to note in response to your If one of them happens to have an article here... comment, not all of those listed have articles here. And some of those also lack a reference. Just to strengthen your argument for deletion. :) Jennavecia  (Talk)  03:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pieing of public figures and economic leaders, as a political, social or economic statement, is a notable subject. Of particular relevance to the subject is identifying those people who have been pied in that context. This is not a list of just anyone who has been pied, or pieings just for humour. There is a significant statement associated with each of these particular instances. The article could certainly do with some clarification in this regard (and perhaps a clarification of the title), but that is grounds for cleanup, not deletion. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Each of these events are very minor news stories, a protest from activist organizations. Each event is no more significant than a petty crime. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pieing.   SIS   14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- A major public figure getting pied is a notable event. It seems to me that a list of notable people who've gotten pied would be reasonable. If there's red-links/non-notable people on the list, then that needs cleaned up, but the list itself should stay. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is a random kid off the street pieing someone as a practical joke notable? As I said above, if they're pied by a notable group such as the Biotic Whatevers, that can probably be mentioned in their article, but we don't need a separate list for it. This list doesn't even have any information on why these people were pied, so there's not even an attempt to make this encyclopedic. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They're notable events because they don't happen often, and when they do, odds are that its going to receive a good bit of news coverage. Not enough obviously to warrant seperate articles on each incident, but certainly enough coverage that citing it wouldn't be a problem. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Pieing good. Who gets pied, couldn't give a damn. Fails on the whole "no collection of random garbage which are vaguely related guideline we have. treelo  radda  14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Although "pieing" may seem like fun stuff in the movies, it's assault and battery in the real world.  Generally, it's done by targetting a prominent person and using the act to call attention to a cause.  I've never considered it to be humorous.  I think that the message it sends is pretty damn scary-- if someone can get close enough to strike you in the face with a harmless object, then they can get close enough to use something else to kill you.  Mandsford (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a wonderful and important addition to Wikipedia, as will be the articles on List of people who have been robbed, List of people who have been raped, List of people who have been cheated on by their spouse, List of people who have been abducted for ransom, List of people who have been denied a credit card and List of people who have been treated by a podiatrist. Please drop me a note when they are created so that I can read them as well.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap, man, now somebody's going to create those articles. Haven't you ever read WP:BEANS? Sheesh. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I be worried that I'd appear on 5 of those 6 new lists of DRosenbach's? I won't say which 5.  Oh, and delete per nominator's rationale.   Keeper  &#448;  76  02:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose that there are some communities where the throwing of pies is part of the daily routine.... Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep based on the fact this passed AFD with a keep decision only a few months ago. Articles must not be repeatedly nominated in such a short period of time. Since this is a rerun, I will simply cut-and-paste my previous comment from the AFD: 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) 12:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only votes I see in any of the AFDs that even come close to valid is the political one. In such a case, the article should be renamed to specify it's about political protest and be limited to political figures. Jennavecia  (Talk)  17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Sources are mostly crap, and six months is more than enough time in between AfDs. Glass  Cobra  18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - In response to the "notable", "well-referenced", and "political" arguments, I just went through the whole list.
 * 10 are non-notable (no BLP).
 * 5 have no reference, or the provided reference lead to a "not found" message.
 * 8 have image-only references, which gives no context.
 * 1 was sent as an anonymous email (the account of the pieing).
 * 5 were missed attempts, mostly missed or victim not the target.
 * 6 are blogs/webzines
 * 3 are copy-vios (with a few more possibles that also failed for other reasons noted above).
 * 1 was a celebration, one friend pied by another (musician).
 * Several of the others entries have foreign language refs that prevent me from determining if 1/ they are a reliable source, 2/ confirm the pieing, or 3/ serve as a "notable" political event. Jennavecia  (Talk)  18:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is out of 72 references, you're criticising just a few. And some of the criticisms ( because WP doesnt have an article about the person, because a link is broken, because it was only an attempted pieing, because a convenience link was a copyvio of an article published elsewhere, or because it was in a foreign language ) are hardly reasons to disqualify the sources, just some citations need to be fixed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? That's 39 sources, which is more than half, not just a few. Redlink = not notable. When sources provided lead to nothing, that counts an "unreferenced". A person hasn't been pied if the "attack" was a miss, thus they don't qualify by the title. And they certainly shouldn't be added if they were pied accidentally for standing to close to a target. And what is a "convenience link"? We don't reference things for "convenience". The references are copy-vios. Copyrighted youtube links. Lastly, I think it's pretty clear what I was saying about the foreign language links. I can't verify them. Nice attempted strawman, though. Jennavecia  (Talk)  15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding issue-by-issue:
 * More than thirty references still isn't enough to estabish notability?
 * The article on Abraham Lincoln was a redlink at one time, too.
 * Im sure the people who only attempted to pie dignitaries still got arrested, and there was still a big fuss. Or do we want to be academic and create a separate article for "people who almost got pied"?
 * The ones who got pied because they were standing next to a target are debatable.
 * There's no requirement for a source to be available online. Sometimes people link to web content that is a copyvio of news articles or TV shows.  But the proper way to handle those is to remove the link and cite the book/news article/film as dead-tree format.  The citation template is important.  A "convenience link" to a web site hosting that content is an extra.
 * There's nothing wrong with non-English sources. Especially for a topic that is more relevant to Europe.
 * Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed this in my nom. Just because it's verifiable does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
 * Looking at these redlinked people, I don't think they'll have bios any time soon.
 * This list isn't about the people that did the pieing. It's about the people that got pied. If they had a pie fly by, that's not the same.
 * Debatable? It's possibly notable that a guy got pegged by some pie because he was standing next to another guy who was the target?
 * That's fine and dandy, but when the information given is a link, and it's a dead, un-retrievable one, then it fails WP:V.
 * Apparently I've twice now failed to communicate that my only reason for mentioning the foreign language sources is to note the fact that in addition to the 39 inadequate sources, there could be more, but they are in languages I can't read, therefore I don't know. That's all I meant by that. But, just so we're all clear, there is a policy that specifically speaks on this. Jennavecia  (Talk)  04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: As a valuable pie fork. This contains comprehensive, sourced information best kept in list form. XF Lawtalk at me 02:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - absolute bollocks and totally worthless - but as long as it is verifiable, so what?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT, most of these are not notable. Unlike many of the lists of people, there is no lasting coverage and the events are not significant enough to be mentioned in the articles about the people who may have been pied.  If it is kept, anything without reliable sources should be removed. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Mack Sennett would have been pleased, but this article has no encyclopedic value. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's such an unusual form of protest, almost like challenging somebody to a duel.  For editors who aren't familiar with it, it actually happens in certain countries and with certain groups, and it's not something that only happens on The Three Stooges.  I'd say keep this well-sourced and politically significant article as a subarticle of pieing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where a notable person has been pied and the event itself is deemed notable, that information surely belongs in their article (subject to the usual WP:BIO verifiability criteria). Where that's not the case, we have no business recording it. EyeSerene talk 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strongly agree with rationale provided in above comments by, , and . Cirt (talk) 04:20, 8 October 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.