Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capping stunt

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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capping stunt

Delete: Non-notable, non-encyclopedia material JimmyO 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. --Francisco Valverde 16:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's mainly a definition; the example mentioned in the article is unicited rumour. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems fine to me. Maybe the nom could provide more explanation of why this is "non-encyclopedia material". -- JJay 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deckiller 18:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of now, this looks like a thing made up in school one day. Show me a couple of legitimate sources, and I may be willing to reconsider. --djrobgordon 18:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in response to JJay's source. --djrobgordon 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure why people are voting if they don't know what this is about. In any case, the foot and mouth scare was suspected to be a capping stunt by the police. See ref [1]-- JJay 18:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep should be expanded to prove it notability, though. Eivind 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally deprodded this because I didn't think it was a clear-cut case, considering it had a few incoming links which didn't seem to just be thrown together by the article creator. It looks to me like I'd think it was notable if I was from New Zealand. If the newspapers are talking about this tradition in this way, I think it deserves a spot on Wikipedia. NickelShoe 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge where appropriate --Grocer 20:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Highly notable and significant part of New Zealand university culture - would be about as prominent for NZ university culture as, say cheerleading teams are to US university culture. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Grutness. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)" .Capitalistroadster 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely places other than New Zealand also have such traditions? But, even without it, it is notable. --Midnighttonight 02:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness.-gadfium 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness, especially if the article is expanded to talk about the tradition and history more. I don't see how one could include it in an article about New Zealand university culture readily. By contrast, the pranking tradition at Caltech is specific to that US school and is a section of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay's refs. Melchoir 05:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , very common at all NZ universities. If occurs elsewhere then perhaps a merged article like Graduation Prank perhaps. - SimonLyall 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Grutness Brian | (Talk) 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a common NZ phenomenon. Ziggurat 08:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good to me. Ashibaka tock
Strong keep. Notable to NZers. Recent edits have also made it more encyclopedic. -- Avenue 04:51, 9 March 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.