Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of billionaires hit by pies

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 was Speedy deleted per WP:SNOW, WP:A10 and common sense Pedro : Chat 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of billionaires hit by pies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't the point of Wikipedia. It isn't the point to say that Bill Gates stepped in dog poo or anything of that sort. It's illrelevent to the project. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 20:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also the redirect caused by moving it; List of billionaires hit by shaving cream pies. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & make BJAODN & DAFT notes - Obvious this is unnecessary being two entries, however, this goes under the hilarious idea column, so I'd vote for addition to WP:DAFT and if anyone remembers WP:BJAODN. It kind of deserves preservation to make us laugh. :) Mitch32^{(Can someone turn on the damn air conditioning?)} 20:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already covered the obvious in comments right there at the top of the article. The people are notable due to their bank accounts, the event is notable enough to be remembered 13 years later, and now we have two of them. I could keep citing different news articles if it'd help. So far, I've limited myself to two each. - Denimadept (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on whether or not it should be kept or merged, but it should be kept in some form. Pieing is a relatively popular form of protest these days, and I don't see anything wrong with making a list of incidents - especially if there are numerous cases of people being targeted because of the size of their bank accounts. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - silliness, but trivial silliness that does not need an entry in an encyclopedia. LadyofShalott 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I'm tempted to keep this one because of the notoriety of both instances, as a form of political protest. We do have List of people who have been pied, so until there are more than two billionaires and that list needs to be split into sublists by group of people, I have to agree with Mitch on this one. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well then. I hadn't noticed the existing article. Still, I'm keeping a copy. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, this billionaire article should be speedily deleted under the A10 criterion. I won't do it though since I've become involved here. (I can't believe some of the stuff on here!) LadyofShalott 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with that. I don't even want to. - Denimadept (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ha ha ha ha ha oh god what the ha ha ha.... no. Seriously though, listcruft stupidity, burn with fire. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.