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)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
"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)
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)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:siroxo
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
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}}. |
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)
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)
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)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
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)
"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)
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)
Source assessment table: prepared by
User:siroxo
| ||||
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
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}}. |
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)
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)