Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of school pranks


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 03:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

List of school pranks
DELETE Quite possibly the most unencyclopedic article I've ever seen. It violates What Wikipedia is NOT on a number of counts. WP is NOT a Dictionary, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, etc, etc. So, unencylopedic, not noteable, and much of it is unverifiable. pm_shef 06:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NFT, and Listcruft. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 06:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, absolutely unencyclopaediac. --Soumyasch 06:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day.  (aeropagitica)   06:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several of these pranks are not just made up in a school. Pranks like "Indian burn" are widespread and known by that name. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, all lists are unencyclopedic; however, Wikipedians seem to like them. What makes List of protosciences or List of people who have claimed to be Jesus more worthy than this one? -AED 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're voting keep here because other people have kept other lists you consider unencyclopedic? I don't quite get your point here... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom and User:Royboycrashfan, this article is a POV and Vandalism nightmare. --Hetar 08:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 10:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete more listcruft. Eusebeus 11:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cruft, not encyclopaedic.    Proto    ||    type    11:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete - WP is not for things got up to in school one day.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, listcruft, unverifiable, unencyclopaedic. --Ter e nce Ong 13:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic Celcius 13:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuke from orbit per WP:NFT, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:BEANS. We shouldn't be telling people how to injure each other in "amusing" ways. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:BEANS applies here; it only warns against giving people dangerous ideas about using Wikipedia, presumably in the Talk: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Dangerous information in actual articles is covered by Risk disclaimer and shouldn't be censored on the basis of WP:BEANS. –Sommers (Talk) 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep People can delete bits which are unsourced. Alternatively, it could be transwikied to uncyclepedia, which may have a better chance of staying "up to date" due to OR rules.  JeffBurdges 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and source. Some of these japes are very old indeed; sourcing them ought to be no problem. This is potentially a very useful article. ProhibitOnions 16:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's sourced, there is potential for an interesting article. Will reconsider vote in a few days.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * Comment Even if it were to be sourced, it would still violated WP:NOT and WP:NFT -- pm_shef 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be indiscriminate, and wouldn't be made up. Needs a context obviously but, given that, there could be a perfectly good article in there.  I agree a list of merry japes isn't encyclopedaic.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. feydey 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic vandal magnet. Brian G. Crawford 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. These things exist and are commonplace.Tombride 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of anthropological interest. If there are articles on (deadly) combat, mere buffoonry should not be excluded. Darlingg 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep = as above. For great justice. 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, with severe slashing and burning of all non-notable and/or unsourced entries. This is largely unencyclopedic as it is, but with work, it can be fixed without deleting it. –Sommers (Talk) 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete While Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, this definitely has some anthropological interest. But I can see it quickly evolving into a local usage free-for-all. Fishhead64 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good source of information, at least keep the most important ones. --FlyingPenguins 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, as many of these things are more common than just 'things made up at school one day.' If it's on The Simpsons, it can't be that obscure, no? I recommend restarting the page and inserting only pranks that can be supported with evidence. Spamguy 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic invitation for abuse. Gene Nygaard 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Literally WP:NFT, although many of these things have nothing to do with school at all, and did I miss it, or is "short-sheeting" the bed missing from this list?  Slowmover 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Remember, just because a page invites cruft or abuse doesn't mean it should be deleted—it means it should be watched and maintained. –Sommers (Talk) 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - sorry I'm not convinced about keeping it. --Khoikhoi 01:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Page with nearly 1,000 edits in its history...screw 'unmaintainable'. Potentially more informative and useful than 95% of the other articles on Wikipedia. Andymc 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists inherently attract more edits than many 'articles' by their very nature; I notice that of the somewhat less than 1000 edits, the majority are anons, and there's a lot of decrufting, removing vandalism, and removing non-notable entries. And it's still in the shape it is; if it's to be "maintainable", it needs criteria for what should be included. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Superstrong Keep&mdash;I actually bookmarked this only yesterday as one of my favourite articles. Articles like these are why people love Wikipedia!  PS:  for a non-native English speaker such as I this is a valuable source of information&mdash;where else could I have found out what a "purple nurple" is? Maikel 18:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Who cares? It's a funny article that brings back memories. Go ahead and keep it. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.175.105.109 (talk • contribs).
 * KeepMost of these pranks are widespread and not just made up one day. Howabout1 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bizarre. Ambi 04:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wtf --Ryan Delaney talk 04:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; preposterously unencyclopedic. MCB 05:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - For the same reasons as Andymc, Sjakkalle, and AED. Jgp 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Fishhead64. It would be nice if the article could be cleaned up enough to work - it's far too unwieldy just now, and seems to be more of a list of "my favourite pranks" than anything of real value - but I can't see any way in which there could be a consensus as to what pranks were notable enough and what weren't, since local customs vary so hugely even within a few miles. Loganberry (Talk) 12:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle; it may need cleaning up, but better to have this single article than a dozen or more individual articles for each item listed. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; unencyclopedic in this form but I agree with Loganberry and Fishhead64 above. I think that there is potential for an article if someone were tackle the subject matter in a rigorous manner.Obiskobilob 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/userfy and restart with criteria and verifiable sources. We went through this recently with Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names, which then got moved to the Wikipedia space and is now merged back in much-reduced form at Place names considered unusual. That seems appropriate here as well, otherwise it's just listcruft. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I remember more than half of these from school 20 years ago. They're not simply something "made up in school one day" but a part of our collective social history.  While the article does need a significant cleanup and a lot of the dross cut from it, the problems that most people are citing are purely format based – not content.   That is a reason to edit; NOT to destroy a potential resource.--Mr2mk1g 15:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Locke Cole, Sjakkalle, etc. Though I do think that a liberal sprinkling of citations is required. Many of these entries could be found in kid's books and popular culture. Many of these are part of hazing in the military also.--talkie_tim 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. President Lethe 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and find verifiable sources. —Keenan Pepper 16:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is a good list vandalism is not reason for ersaing things Yuckfoo 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 17:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously needing severe restructuring, guidelines, and verify sources (thus weeding out many of them). But as a resource to non-native english speakers (Maikel) and schoolteachers (of course), this should be kept if someone takes up championing it, the work isn't that difficult to correct the errors. This isn't AfD worthy, and i vaguely can grasp this as an WP:NOT. And lists as such don't neccessarly fall under the catagory of "Wikipedia is not a Dictonary" as long as they provide context and validity. This, albiet it some of them have an absence of it, contain both context and validity. Some orignal research, admittedly, but, a vast majority of this is common school pranks even I remember in school. I can see an article in the mess. A VfD isn't the way to solve this. It needs severe work, but is a worthy article. Snipe Hunt is a cleaner, more respectable idea of what this should be. Especially noting, if you're crusading based on content. Refrain. Silly and childish content matter is no reason for and AfD. --evesummernight 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic and highly susceptible to hoaxes and non-notable additions. Rhobite 18:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable, not encyclopedic, likely to contain original research or hoaxes. -Will Beback 19:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could use clean-up and some citations, but a valid documentation of legitimate practices.boinger 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unmaintainable, at the very least remove all but the most 'notable'.  Radagast83 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I venture to say that those of us who fell victim to such things realize that they represent part of society, while those who "had a good time in school" probably don't understand the social significance. I strongly recommend the keep. Jimaginator 20:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's information, it's generally accurate, and in the nature of the subject this is likely to be a more concise and legible source than most others. If I'm reading a story or personal account that mentions a "reverse arm wrestle", for instance, then I'd be glad that Wikipedia can tell me what one is. PeteVerdon 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all pranks that have verifiable sources. This article is going to need a lot of work --Liface 21:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This page could, in time, become a valuable resource about bullying. At least half of these are mentioned in one media of another. The title needs tweaking. Maybe List of high school pranks or similar. --Auric 23:17, 4 April 2006 (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.