Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of school pranks (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 of the debate was No consensus. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; &tau;&omicron; m&epsilon;) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

List of school pranks
This article is uncyclopedic, contains many unverified things and also shouldn't exist, because it encourages these stupid pranks, which are definitely wrong to do. Free for all 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As unencyclopedic as it might be, this article is harming no one.  Besides, wikipedia is already known for it's volumes of useless knowledge (along with the useful stuff).  It's entertaining, and if nothing else, it keeps people amused and interested in the project.  Also, much of the given information is verrifiable.  Namely, the origins of some of the pranks.
 * Strong delete &mdash; it baffles me that this list was saved from deletion the last time. It's completely unencyclopedic, wholly unverified, and frankly half of it is probably made up. I fail to see any reason why it should remain, this is an encyclopdia. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like there are a number of pages that link to this one - is that a criterion for considering whether to delete something? Leaving all those red links everywhere is going to be bait for someone to re-create.  I have also witnessed articles being merged into this one on more than one occasion.  Aguerriero  ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 20:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep regrettably, since the alternative is hundreds of uncited articles on individual pranks which will be impossible to delete. There is precedent for precisely that problem. Just zis Guy you know? 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow your argument. I agree that people may create articles on individual pranks, but if they're cited/notable that's good and they can stay, and if not of course they can be deleted! If the article does remain I suggest we adopt some strict inclusion criteria, because it's completely unmanageable as it is now. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Google hits trumps reliable sources with this kind of cruft. People will vote keep on each individual prank, uncited or not, because "I've heard of it" - even if they've heard of it because they made it up themselves.  Yes, a very cynical view, but this is why we have undeletable crap articles like Cleveland Steamer and donkey punch - we dleeted the list of purported sex moves. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are at least verifiable sources for those... sort of (as crude jokes, not as actual sex practices, of course). I see your point, though.  Weak keep for the sake of the children. &mdash; AKADriver  &#x260E;  17:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep you are putting this up for the second time without any reason not in the first one. Why would the outcome be different? Howabout1 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No article in Wikipedia should ever start with "list of". 64.12.116.195 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds like one for the Village Pump to me . . . mg e kelly 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Most of this list is unverifiable, and much of it sounds like stuff made up in school one day. It's school bully listcruft. Fluit 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "That's Tomkinson, clothears." Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Unverified, mostly unverifiable, and mostly unencyclopedic.  And frankly, I'd much rather have 3 or 4 short articles on pranks that have actually been regularly mentioned in pop culture sources than this long, mostly made up list.- Polo  te  t  01:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that what you'll get is three or four hundred short articles of questionable quality each lacking any reliable sources but undeletable because the number of google hits is assumed to mean that somewhere there must be a reliable source. Pen 15 is one I remember. Just zis Guy you know? 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT a place for stuff made up in school one day. Although these are rather well-established, you could always just ask a friend or go to urban dictionary instead. Not encyclopedic AT ALL. M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Culturally relevant pranks such as "Wet willie" and "kancho" deserve mention, but most of these pranks are just stuff made up by kids that get forgotten after college. And as a sidenote, I'm starting to agree with the anon who says articles that start with "List of" generally have no place here. Danny Lilithborne 04:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NFT does not apply here by any stretch of imagination. That is for things that no one has ever heard of other than the people who made it up.  This is a list of cultural phenomena that should be cataloged as a part of the knowledge of our society.  Being sophomoric or "wrong to do" (???) is never, ever a reason to delete.  I've yet to read a convincing argument to delete that doesn't come from a soapbox.  If you don't "like" the topic, just don't read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aguerriero (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Many of them sound made up, and without sources we have no way of knowing whether they are or not. WP:V is a convincing argument to delete.- Polo  te  t  05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, it's not. It's a convincing argument to add sources to the page.  Due to users like Free for all not using edit summaries, I can't easily tell when the  tag was added, but as far as I'm aware, the article should be cleaned up and cited.  There is no call to destroy potentially useful information.  Aguerriero  ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 05:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pranks without decent references should be removed, but there is no reason that a list of schoolyard pranks is inherently unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not censored for minors. mg e kelly 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As per Mgekelly. Beno1000 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Agree with Mgekelly. Why should it be deleted because of some bad refencing? Twipie 15:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, keep only the well known ones. This list is likely to get WP:NFT stuff as soon as you turn your back. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please this is notable erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 22:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The concept may be notable, but the list? "list of school pranks" gets <300 ghits, many of them mirrors.  Not your most perspicacious AfD input :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * that is a silly comment when "school prank" gets 35,000 google hits a list of these is noteworthy really Yuckfoo 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's reasonably notable, needs cleanup and trimming of unreferenced material, but deleting it isn't the way to go. Stifle (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep &mdash; This accurately describes the several humorous pranks that although seemingly unkown, it can be noticed they use British language, indicating they are popular in the UK, not in the US, so it could be strange for an American reader.
 * Delete 1) unreferenced 2) original research 3) unmaintainable... I dont think I need to go on here.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 01:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and revise - A problem with this article is that it has grown way too long, as users continually add new items that they think should be added onto the list, creating an extremely long page and it is quite tedious to read. I recommend deleting all but a few common ones, or organize the article in a better format. Of course these pranks are wrong, but the article does serve a purpose in describing some of these very common occurences. I don't agree with the opinion that it is not an encyclopaedic article in terms of the content, but I do agree with the opinion that it is not encyclopaedic with regards to the formatting. –-  kungming·2 |  (Talk · Contact)  02:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. on this principle: shouldn't encourage kids to (do something) is a weak argument, except perhaps to rename/reformat the content here, not necess delete. also, "cruft" has as much meaning on an AfD page as "communist" does at a McCarthy hearing. Kɔffee Drinker McIzzl 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell they need no encouraging. But while I can sympathise with thoise who simply discount this article as a festering pool of cruft, if a few people were to watch it and kill the unreferenced ones which do not Google (which is about half of them by a quick count) the list will be just about manageable and will stave off attmpts to create articles for each one - which we really don't need. Just zis Guy you know? 18:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see why the usual verifiability and notability rules are relaxed for this article. Most of the sources listed at the bottom are not appropriate. Pseudomonas 09:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kungming2. Andymc 15:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As per Mgekelly. EuroSong 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alkivar. Nacon kantari   e |t||c|m 18:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep obviously. KI 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, obviously not. Speedy keep is not an option in this case.  And this is not a vote, so "obviously" probably does not count as a rationale in this case. Just zis Guy you know? 20:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, but if this is not deleted, it should be moved to school prank. Fomz 21:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to "school prank": perhaps regrettably! But the school prank is a verifiable cultural phenomenon, and there are a number of particularly well-established types. I don't see why an encyclopedic article on school pranks is impossible (although I can see that on an "open" encyclopedia, it may well be difficult to maintain, with the risk of rapid degeneration). And this isn't just a "popular culture" thing either - there are possibilities of referencing from both biographical and other factual literature, and also fictional literature. What can't be referenced can and should be stripped out. The fact that some are referencable is a sign that the list itself should be kept - many votes seem to be misunderstanding WP:V. If we had an individual article on an individual or phenomenon that was impossible to verify, it needs to be got rid of. Now, many individual claims in this list are impossible to verify. But the fact that "school pranks" exist is not, and many of the core claims in this article are verified and should be kept, along with the list itself. TheGrappler 00:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't actually see the point in this article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and present a NPOV, so who am I do judge? 13:08, 7 May 2006
 * Strong Delete - For a number of reasons. First, WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Also, there is no claim to notability which arguably would qualify it for Speedy deletion. Finally, it is simply listcruft - this article serves no real purpose. - pm_shef 17:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is plain stupid. r3m0t talk 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEPER —the preceding unsigned comment was the only Wikipedia contribution by 216.233.88.218
 * Keep because the list is funny and useful to bullies seeking advice from Wikipedia. Seriously though, my keep vote counts no matter what my comments may be on the situation anyway.  I find the list enjoyable and entertaining; therefore, it's useful to me. However, the most insignificant and arguable made-up pranks on the list should be removed. (Notorious4life 04:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment As this is not a vote, the closing admin is free to ignore "keep"s or "delete"s without a valid reason attached as they see fit.- Polo  te  t 05:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't work that way. My vote counts whether or not I leave a comment. If you want a more detailed comment from me, try this out then: Keep per TheGrappler (Notorious4life 05:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment This is not a vote. It's a discussion.- Polo  te  t  16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'd rather have this content centralized in one article than spread out across hundreds of articles. Ewlyahoocom 11:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I wish they'd do this with the drinking games. I agree about the name, should be "School pranks".Apollo 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the lesser evil, per JzG. Mark as unverified. - Liberatore(T) 19:22, 10 May 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.