Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pile-on

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 first argument for keep is conditional, and as of now, no reliable sources have been added (Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source)... many of the other arguments for keep reference the first. I considered Mikka's argument but did not find it compelling when weighing against the delete arguments. Per WP:NEO, Delete without prejudice to a recreation if properly sourced. --++Lar: t/c 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - a number (but not all, it was a judgement call on my part) of the what links here pages were changed to point to School prank#pile-on as part of my cleanup after deleting. ++Lar: t/c 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pile-on

Pile-on (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

That which is not a slang dictionary definition reads as original research. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as according to WP:NEO. --Tarret 14:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I believe it's quite a common term, but I can't find any reliable sources, so delete per WP:V and WP:NEO unless some reliable sources can be found. Jayden54 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - common term used by many people, but the lack of reliable sources is a concern, if reliable sources aren't found within the timeframe of this afd, then weak delete per WP:V & WP:NEO. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO TSO1D 15:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki as dicdef (allow them to determine sourcing/currency). Not really a viable article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I asked for this to be brought back because of references from Snipe hunt and School prank among others. In light of the comments I see here, perhaps it's too long-winded and should be described solely in School prank. Comments? Frotz661 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arnzy. 1ne 15:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term itself is common enough in standard English, and is applied to everything from paperwork to food to American Football players, so ordinarily, I would say transwiki, but the current article is about an unbelievably trivial and non-notable use of the term and is completely unsalvageable IMO. Xtifr tälk 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm I guess conditional keep per Arnzy, and possibly move to some other term like "dogpile". This article is not a dicdef, but is weak in terms of verifiability. I think this afd is a bit premature, as there is some hope of turning it into a reasonably sourced article, and there aren't substantial promotional elements calling for an immediate smackdown, so its problems should have been discussed on its talk page before AfD. As Cool Cat put it, AfD is not an article improvement drive. If deleted, re-creation should be permitted if good docs are added in the re-creation. 67.117.130.181 09:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Quite widespread. It is also known in Russia under the name "Куча-мала!" ("The Heap is Too Small!"). I will try to dig out something Russian. There are some interesting discussions about the psychology of the game [1], [2], [3]. `'mikka 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment the cell phone game with the same or similar name (also Russian version [4]) has nothing in common with the body pile-up, and must be split out into the separate article. (a 100% verifiable one, BTW) Any volunteers? `'mikka 05:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I believe "dog pile" is a better name as it is arguably more common and unambiguous. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:43Z
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.