Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pencil fight

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; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil fight Pencil fighting[edit]

Delete This article is about what bored students do in class when they are not thinking up hoax articles for WP. Ruby 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete, it's all non-notable until someone loses an eye. Keep per Mitsukai. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Running-With-Scissors bit. Ruby 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. *drew 08:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merchbow 09:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep We did this 20 years ago when I was in school. Definately not a new concept. Might be reasonable to keep. Randomgenius 09:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is an encyclopedia. This is not encyclopedic. ENCEPHALON 11:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MLA 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We have an article on Paper football, what makes this different?--み使い Mitsukai 17:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One battle at a time is my motto. Ruby 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathunder 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This has been around for at least 25 years (and probably much longer), and known to millions of children (and ex-children). Expand, not delete. Turnstep 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the article a tiny bit and moved to Pencil fighting. Turnstep 21:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real subject. Golfcam 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a real game with consistent rules that's been around for at least 20 years. ×Meegs 06:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand further (as per Turnstep) -- Unsigned comment by Karnesky.
Delete as per nomination. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Stifle 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used to play this game -- between 10 and 15 years ago. This is played by schoolchildren everywhere and is certainly not a hoax. I'm actually going to say keep. Grandmasterka 08:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real game, necessary to encyclopedic coverage of what bored students do in class. Kappa 02:45, 6 February 2006 (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.