Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School prank (3rd nomination)

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 result of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School prank

A whole bunch of original research. Also, we don't want to encourage the pranks by having an article on them, thus delete. Helicoptor 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, who on earth writes this stuff? Wikipedia isn't a guide anyway.--Andeh 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Get rid of any unverifiable stuff.--Optichan 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep though the article needs a massive edit. I've tagged it for sourcing. Any entries that do not get sourced should be deleted per WP:V.--Isotope23 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or merge verifiable components to Hazing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The idea of not having articles that explain bad behavior because we don't want to encourage it is silly. See Murder, Rape, Ice Capades. -- stufff 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The name is not appropriate, as the article only discussion school pranks which lead to injuries. The material presently in the article would fit in Hazing, so that's where I would put it. If kept, I'd redirect to Hazing, anyway, and let others sort out what belongs. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "or ripping the tag off." ¬_¬ Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain I voted keep last time because the alternative, as we see from abysmal unverifiable dross like Cleveland Steamer, is a whole series of small abysmal unverifiable articles rather than one which might stand some chance of being verified in parts. However, this article is a maintenance nightmare and an absolute magnet for things made up in school one day. Just zis Guy you know? 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak keep. If it's cleaned up, it might be okay. :/ Kariià 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No source citations. Nothing here meets the verifiability policy, it's all personal testimony and original research. However, I disagree strongly with the nominator's second comment; whether or not an article encourages pranks is irrelevant. This is not a factor in deciding whether we should have articles on MIT hacks, masturbation, or genocide. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think most of this is "verifiable" but just hasn't yete been "verified." The distinction is important. Hazing and pranks are an important part of school life, and this article did a good job of bringing this together. It avoided the common mistake of just listing info. It's NPOV, verifiABLE, and doesn't sound like being too much OR to me. It deserves the change to grow and be challenged and grow some more. Deletion would prevent that. Interlingua talk 02:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP see above argument about Rapescapades. Brjatlick 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and add some literary examples and history. I recall reading a book (in Japanese, forgot its title) on Meiji period school and it had common pranks pulled by students. Very unfortunately, most aren't useful now because the victim need to be in kimono or something like that. There may not be a book on school pranks per se, but looking under historical education should provide more than enough source for this. -- Revth 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it stands, this page is useless. It either needs to resemble the state it was in at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_prank&oldid=47989665, with a wide variety of short pranks, providing useful, if unsourced information, or be cut down to a core of popular pranks, fully expanded, cited, sourced, etc. The article in its current state is an insult to Wikipedia. Andymc 10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs to resemble this revision and see the comment about murder and rape.
  • Merge with Hazing --FlareNUKE 04:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Why three noms with the same reasons? It was damaged enough the last time as it is. Howabout1 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • B y damaged do you mean the removal of all the utterly unverifiable cruft and leaving only the unverified but probably verifiable if anybody could be bothered cruft? Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Major edits done by FlareNUKE - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_prank&diff=60073775&oldid=60059005 Andymc 13:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Looks like a significant improvement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Much better! But expect them back... Just zis Guy you know? 16:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The page in its current state belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. --Andymc 17:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep In response to nomination: If wikipedia is truly neutral, then they would report this article, because reporting is not condoning. Agree with User:Interlingua, it is verifiable, it just hasn't been verified. Look at the Bowling For Columbine article, half of it is unsourced. Why isn't anyone nominating it for deletion? However, this article needs severe secondary sources input, and a phrasing clean-up.

-The Only Non-Brainless Person Around Here It Seems 26:48 24th June 2006 (Non-UTC)

  • Moderately strong delete I don't think there's any point in this article. As a list, it's just a mixture of original research and things made up at school in one day, as well as being completely irresponsible as it allows bullies to publish their methods for other morons to copy. Without the list, it's not really of any interest to anyone, because it's too short. I think the best thing would be to delete the list, move the rest of the info onto the pranks article, and delete the page. I know it's extreme, but I can't see any way around it. RobbieG 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is Wikipedia for goodness sakes: the website with information on anything and everything. To say it should be deleted just because someone doesn't like the topic is ludicrous. Some people don't like Spinich, but there's an article on that. If you don't think the information on this page is accurate, then you can edit it if you wish. Don't delete the page just because it's a touchy topic. Kevin 02:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems just fine to me. --Alphachimp talk 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and reinstate examples. We don't want to encourage terrorism or herpes, but we have articles on those. Grant 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see your point, but few mentally stable people on Wikipedia are likely to attempt terrorism, and people who do most likely don't have the technology. Spinach doesn't have a negative physical impact on people (you can joke, but it's true), and as for herpes, you can't really encourage a disease in that way, as nobody wants to catch it. Bullying, on the other hand, is probably practiced by hundreds of kids who may come looking to this page for ideas. Like I said on the talk page, I don't object to the encyclopaedic treatment of the topic, but I do think listing different pranks, complete with instuctions, is a bit much. Besides, the morality of an article is immaterial when most of the content is non-notable original research anyway. RobbieG 11:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - We have articles on terrorism. Does that mean we encourage terrorism? Hell no. WhisperToMe 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
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.