Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied (4th 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. Hahahaha. Humour aside, I agree that this article supplements pieing, and should therefore be kept given that the list content satisfies biography guidelines. --Deryck C. 23:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: a deletion review determined that while the wording of the close of this AfD was not appropriate, there was no consensus to delete it. It can be renominated if an editor desires to do so. Chick Bowen 05:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Several non-notable listings, unsourced listings, indiscriminate info. This list adds nothing to the viewer's understanding of the concept of pieing. Also, SPLUT! (First two AFDs from 2007 and 2008 both closed as keep due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nominator; third closed as no consensus in 2008.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC) *Delete. Does anybody care? Is this a reason for living? What's the point? And numerous similar questions rushed through my mind. "Pieing" itself is not a notable activity. Although there are numerous examples of such activity. "Pieing" cannot inherit notability from notables who have been pied. Maybe there is a reason for living when one can nominate such lists for deletion. Or is there? Nipson anomhmata  (Talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't imagine any reason this could ever be considered a notable topic. It's not even worthy of a category. --Dmol (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good grief. Nobody is discussing this list; there is no academic interest in the demographics of pie victims; pieing is a concept now? Fails WP:NLIST. --NellieBly (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no opinion on the list, and whether there is academic or popular interest in the subject of pieing victims is, I think, the key question we should consider, but pieing is a Real (and Messy) Thing. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- I'm just going to quote a user from one of the previous afd's, since they said it so well: "Too many references to call it not notable, well sourced, and a really good example of what a list should be." Umbralcorax (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article contains numerous sources and it is easy to find more such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine someone cares, else we'd not have the list in the first place. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT applies, this is not significant information about a person; its trivia. WP:NOT also applies, this is not the place for trivial, unimportant lists. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hard to delete something with that many reliable sources - and unsourced entries are removed through editing, rather than deletion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But does this amount to anything more than trivia? The entries have literally nothing in common besides being pied. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's part of why I didn't go Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. FWIW, I nominated this almost 3 years ago, and my rational still stands: 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  (toccyx)  23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. How many times does removing this list get debated? The idea of removing this list has been debated three times already, and it was decided to keep the list. Have Wikipedia criteria for removing lists changed in the past two years (since the last debate)? If not, I think this list should stay. We owe it to people who came before us to honor their opinions/decisions. As for the list itself as it presently stands, you can see that many, many hours of investigation were put into the list. We owe something to the people who put in that work, too. Chisme (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been converted. Chisme has made a very good point. This is the 4th AfD nomination and it has survived all previous AfDs and that is notable. So I'm striking my delete recommendation.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 00:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of AFDs doesn't matter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter? Please explain why. Chisme (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, the first two had WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales, and the third was no consensus. There is no limit to re-nominating something that has previously been closed as "no consensus" and/or had an invalid rationale in the first AFD. How many AFDs did Daniel Brandt get? 14? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Pieing is a notable form of political protest; see this article in Mother Jones Magazine (as well as other sources in the pieing article), which discusses a number of specific incidents of notable people being pied. It's not unreasonable to present it in list format, and the list is long enough to have it split off from the main article. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per users Dmol and NellieBly, this is a silly list that doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. —  Gabe 19  ( talk contribs) 20:28, 6 May 2011 (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.