Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been pied (5th 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. Editors remain evenly split on whether the assembled coverage meets WP:LISTN, with the main point of contention being whether the listicle-style coverage in NEWSORG RS publications is sufficiently significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have been pied[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an indiscriminate, crufty list of people who have been pied over the years that has gone to AfD several times, the last discussion being over a decade ago. A good deal of keep arguments then focused on the article having "reliable sources" or being "verifiable". I don't think this applies to the article in a modern context; a good deal of the sources are primary and dead, or otherwise unreliable/not counting towards notability. Most of the examples are people being pied in some video, and then the video being the source. There are a few "pieings" of notable people that have gotten attention and sustained overage over the years; these instances can be mentioned in the main Pieing article. Finally, I think there are BLP considerations here that encourage against maintaining a list of people who have had a goofy object thrown at their face. Thank you, Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Food and drink, Entertainment, and Popular culture. Skynxnex (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplication of Pieing - same subject, same author. The list was created two days after the article was written. I see no purpose in creating a stand-alone table, but I see the article having the same BLP issues, especially in the "Convicted" section. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and remove any entries that rely on primary sources~~ ~~to avoid aforementioned BLP issues.~~ Indeed, covering only pieings mentioned in a secondary source will improve the value of the list anyways. —siro χ o 07:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've now linked in a reply further down, this meets WP:LISTN —siro χ o 20:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove unreliable or dead sources. It seems like the living people requirement would only apply to unreliable sources, not the entire list. Chamaemelum (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it only apples to unreliable sources, though. Take an example from the list, such as Fiona Apple's entry. She was pied by Johnny Knoxville as part of a bit during a live reading with other celebrities. Variety, a reliable source, summarized the live reading and notes the pieing, although the pieing is not the main focus of the coverage of course. We wouldn't include such a trivial joke event that received brief coverage in one reliable source in Apple's article, I don't think it should be noted at all honestly. Just as it's not worth keeping a list of everyone who's participated in a certain challenge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ice Bucket Challenge participants) or been stung by a jellyfish. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, for example, from the ice bucket challenge is that that was something of a WP:RECENT issue where pieing has coverage over 110 years. Maybe in a few years we'll have a reason to make a proper ice bucket challenge list, but it's quite possible we won't. —siro χ o 20:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone show me sources that show this meets WP:LISTN? Otherwise I'd support merge with pieing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a smattering of coverage of groupings of people who have been pied (and I'm leaving out Buzzfeed and equivalents, which do indeed have some coverage). [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] —siro χ o 20:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a distinguishing characteristic. Whether an event is covered in secondary sources still doesn't bring this sort of minor activity to be something needing to be catalogued in an encyclopedia – notable people do a lot of different things but this isn't even mentioned in most of their own biographies. Fails LISTN and NOT#IINFO. Pieing already covers significant instances with their purposes, don't think this needs to be merged there. Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Jimbo: "But "being a useful list" doesn't mean that something is actually an encyclopedia article. I'm not personally super aware of our policy on lists, though. After all, we quite famously have one of my favorite lists, List of fictional pigs, which has been around for - omg I just checked, and thought about how I am getting to be - 20 years!" Chamaemelum (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's well sourced and already has passed AfD multiple times.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last one was 12 years ago...WP:CCC... Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IDONTWANTTOLIVEONTHISPLANETANYMORE. I think Hersfold said it best in the third AFD (sigh), "I beg your pardon, but are you FUCKING serious???" A bit more concretely, LISTN isn't met. A smattering of clickbait-driven listicles doesn't count, and there's just no way any reasonable person can justify the existence of this monstrosity. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go work on List of people who have received wedgies and List of people who have had their shoes tied together while they weren't looking. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a lot of folks in this thread claiming this list does not meet WP:LISTN, so I will try to make a clear demonstration that it does. To quote the LISTN guideline: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. I couldn't limit myself to three but I stuck to four which should be more than sufficient. There are other references. —siro χ o 23:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
CBS, 2011	CBS News, not dependent on any one source	CBS News	list of many individuals who fit the criteria	✔ Yes
NY Daily News, 2016	Daily News, doesn't rely much on any one source	WP:RSP	list of many individuals who fit the criteria	✔ Yes
Slate, 2022	Relies on several sources	Slate is generally considered reliable	details several instances of pieing which fit the criteria, describing the phenomenon collectively	✔ Yes
Book - Bianculli, 2017	Authorship of David Bianculli suggests independence	published by Knopf Doubleday	One example from a book of a list of multiple celebrities lining up to get a pie in the face	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That source table is horse manure. Clickbait listicles don't contribute toward notability, no matter the pedigree of the publisher. The last two sources don't even contribute to LISTN either. The Slate article talks about pieing generally (which, surprise surprise, we already have an article about), with a couple anecdotes of specific incidents, as one does when writing about a topic like this. And the bit from the book is all of one or two sentences, about one TV show that did this, and a handful of people that were on it. None of that even remotely justifies the existence of a list like this. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm feeling a bit woozy from all the banging my head against my desk after seeing all this inexplicable defense of this list. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two non-listicle/slideshow sources here are great for the main article to discuss the purposes of pieing and some significant instances, but I don't think tha[t makes it encyclopedically notable to attempt to list all pieings of people with Wiki articles. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few of the arguments here resemble WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT — all found at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. A couple are positively WP:UNCIVIL. Let's please do better. – .Raven .talk 08:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim - pieing is an assault, but there are several entries which are just comedians: Lucille Ball etc. People being assaulted by pies (I think of the Rupert Murdoch incident) is notable; comedians being pied is not. So keep the page but trim out all entries related to scripted or voluntary pieing. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there a reason why this was nominated again after three keep decisions? If something has changed about the article to warrant re-nomination, we should just edit or revert the article instead of deleting it. Chamaemelum (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CCC. The last one – more than twelve years ago – actually had a 6–5 majority in favor of deletion. The one before that, back in 2008, also had a 12–9 majority in favor of deletion. The no consensus closes may have been appropriate, but that's no reason it can't be rediscussed now. I believe discussion of significant events is appropriate, just listing any and all is not. Rick Jelliffe says the Rupert Murdoch incident is notable – well, Pieing#United_Kingdom actually has more coverage of that incident than this list does! Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! I wasn't criticizing the re-nomination, just wondering. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Selective merge into Pieing. I am against the wholesale deletion of this article because pieing is notable as a form of political protest. However, I understand the WP:NOT#IINFO argument may apply here (especially because of the non-political pieings listed, and I must admit I added one such entry), so I would be willing to accept merging political-related entries from this list into the main Pieing article as an alternative to outright deletion. TigressDragonblade (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm sorry to relist this discussion when evaluating this article seems to actually be causing distress to some editors but I don't see a consensus here yet. I realize that I'm not supposed to reflect an opinion for any specific outcome but could those advocating Keep consider the option of Merge and whether that would be acceptable? Also, while there might be some agreement to trim this list, I can not close an AFD with that outcome unless some editor is volunteering to take that job on. AFDs are a blunt instrument with a limited range of outcomes and a closer can not order to the community at large that editorial work should be done on an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's just cruft. Pie happens. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the issue is the inclusion criteria, not the subject. Obviously we shouldn't be including a character on a TV show who takes a scripted pie in the face, but that's an editing issue. The subject meets WP:NLIST. There are tons of articles which treat victims of pieing as a group. In addition to the above, CNN, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Buzzfeed, Time, Business Insider, Daily Beast... just google any two or three of the prominent names and "pieing" and you'll find a whole lot more. It's odd to see arguments that in-depth coverage of pieing that happens to include a list contributes to the notability of the main topic but not the list, while at the same time articles that are only lists of people who have been pied don't count because they're just lists. Easily passes NLIST. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed a bunch of the junk (a guest on a nighttime talk show getting pied in a skit, someone literally pieing herself for a gag, people taking various "challenges" to take a pie, etc.). That cut it down by roughly half. Importantly, it's still too long to simply include in the main pieing article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Rhododendrites above for trimming the list. I agree it's still too big to merge, but I've changed my !vote from a hedged k to an outright k (above) seeing such improvements. —siro χ o 02:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent analysis done by siroxo and cleanup work by Rhododendrites. Appears well within LISTN. I hate to cite my least favorite Wikipedia essay, but the arguments for deletion are some of the clearest cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that I've seen in some time. -- Visviva (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are grasping-at-stawsy. It’s the same celebrities getting splutted over and over, and that’s not including the questions of protest assault vs. comedy throwing, or the fact that some of these are clearly fluff pieces and listicles from places like Buzzfeed. The most notable incidents (like Murdoch and Gates) can be coveted in prose format; one pie assault is not a defining characteristic unless covered in depth by multiple reliable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG (on which WP:LISTN is based) says significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe this article, a collation of trivial, insignificant incidents, fits into what Wikipedia is not. Any significant incidents should be (and likely are) covered in their respective BLPs and/or in Pieing. (I first saw this article after the above-mentioned clean-up, and if kept, it still needs a lot more pruning. There's one entry sourced solely to a photograph.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources found above discuss the group enough to satisfy WP:LISTN. Trimming out the scripted and/or challenges landed it even more firmly in the "keep" category. Joyous! Noise! 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.