Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pillow 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 keep. SushiGeek 03:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow fight[edit]

Dicdef of a completely obvious concept plus unverified original research plus meaningless trivia. Brian G. Crawford 23:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- not encyclopedic--Light current 00:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we being hasty here? Its obvious to us, is that cultural bias? Is there any way to make something of this article? There are psychological implications, surely - pillows are exceedingly harmless weapons. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does need some work; in particular, the reference to the Beatles is kind of silly. But it's definitely real, and deserves some coverage. Just because it's a children's game doesn't mean it doesn't matter for adults. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article just needs a little improvement. Manufracture 02:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Good references, like the Beatles pillow fight (which I didn't know about) and a very notable game. Grand master ka 03:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. With all due respect to the original nom, since when does something being a "completely obvious concept" justify deletion? We have articles on things that any idiot would know, but we don't delete them because of it. No doubt the article needs work, but that can be requested through the appropriate process. YellowPigNowNow 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's obvious to me what milk is but it's still here, isn't it?MrBlondNYC 12:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would not call a pillow fight a "completely obvious concept". Prominent and singular place in American(/Western) culture. I'm a Lover, Not a Fighter 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFD was closed by NTK, but it was too early. I am reopening it, please leave it for the usual five days. Stifle (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has some interesting information. Metamagician3000 13:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a completely self-explanatory phrase that does not require an encyclopedia entry. It's not an organized competitive activity or game, it doesn't have a notable history, and there's nothing else really to say about it. Honestly. Pillow fight = fighting with pillows, and that's basically the whole of it. The article goes into excruciatingly tedious detail ad nauseum in defiance of that barrier, which lends support to my delete vote. Also while it gets mentioned in pop culture once in a while and the Beatles appear to have had one, neither of those makes this topic encyclopedic. GT 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - could lead to something interesting. Cedars 16:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you inclusionists are around to vote to keep Wooden spoon fight and Squirt gun battle when I write those. Brian G. Crawford 17:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article on a high school that conducts no valuable academic research, is not the location of any significant event, has had no notable impact on culture and is not relevant to 99.99% of people on this planet can be kept than something that is an occassional form of recreational play can be kept (by the way consider merging your squirt gun battle article with the water pistol article). Cedars 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your first point is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with this topic being self-explanatory and obvious (a high school might be unencyclopedic but not for those reasons) and then you provide exactly the solution that should be done with this article (merge Pillow fight into Pillow). Mind boggling. GT 01:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever. -- cmh 02:32, 11 April 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.