Talk:Pillow fight flash mob

This article was nominated for deletion on 15/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

}}

Oracle

Using my amazing powers of prognostication, I can forsee that this article will undergo a VFD at some point in the future. Remember, you heard it here first! GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, you're a modern-day Delphic Oracle

Hmackiernan

Seems to have decent chances of surviving too, at that! Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 07:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o rly? Hmackiernan 21:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the hearty helping of sock puppets is not helping. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 20:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is there any recourse for this?

Hmackiernan 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, but I am not sure. This kind of thing seems somewhat inevitable when a fad (worthy of mention in Wikipedia or not) comes up for AfD. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from the closer

Influx of very new users aside, there just wasn't consensus to delete. The arguments could have been better presented by both sides, and the current article is woeful, but that is a clean-up (and probably renaming or merging) issue not a deletion one.
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 06:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Pillow fight flash mob

This article has survived AfD. However, most discussions of this phenomenon, including journalistic articles like the San Francisco Chronicle article, refer to these as simply pillow fight flash mobs. Although the final article should mention the name Pillow Fight Club, it is not the name most currently used and is instead a neologism of a marginally accepted neologism (flash mob). Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - "Pillow Fight Club" refers specifically to the London group and other groups that choose to adopt this name; however, it excludes independent organizers of pillow fight flash mobs when clearly we are talking about the same phenomenon sans "Club". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.151.156.216 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the clarification. I think the article should reflect both, with Pillow fight flash mob as the umbrella term and a discussion of how Pillow Fight Club refers to specific groups of pillow fight flash mob afficianados. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! also fixed some redirects Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate - the 'de-branding' of the post to situate the PFC events as part of flash mobs. a good compromise to take advantage of research already done. --dr elys jimenez 00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we were too hasty

I think I would have moved this article to Massive pillow fights. The term "flash mob" is used to describe novel, self-proclaimed pointless events. Pillow fighting is not new, and this phenomenon is only different in the sense that it is much larger than the average pillow fight, it takes place in public and it is promoted almost exclusively via the Internet. Pyrotix 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well if you're broadening the scope to include pillow fights qua pillow fights then I would say the whole thing is NOT NOTABLE. But I'm not willing to go down that road. Again. Zero sharp 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Remove Valuable External Links

WP:EL says "adding a certain number of relevant external links is of valuable service to our readers." The external links not only offer valuable additional information about massive pillow fights, such as video and photographs, but substaniate the claims made in the article about *where* pillow fights have occurred, and act as sources. Pyrotix 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. I'd suggest, as nicely as possible, that you re-read the guideline, and then browse some of our best articles to see how they treat external links. In the interim I'm going to remove any that don't match the guideline. - brenneman ^{L} 10:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009

Undoubtedly this particular article will experience another flurry of activity in the weeks leading up to March 21st to April 4th when the World Wide Flash Mob returns. News coverage will most likely spark public interest in this article once again. I suggest possibly beefing up this article as well as coming to an agreement now about how external links should be dealt with. It's like people will want to post links to pages organizing the upcoming pillow fights like we see on the flash mob article. 205.200.64.158 (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

suggest a merge to

This topic can be sufficiently covered by merging it into flash mob. 67.100.125.43 (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was suggested a long time ago except there are literally hundreds of types of flash mobs. Wikipedia as about a dozen or so articles such as silent disco which made the flash mob section huge and somewhat off-topic listing the various possibilities of flash mobs which seem infinite. Keeping flash mob about the concept and then separate articles about notable types or variations of flash mobs was the outcome. Mkdw ^talk 06:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Pillow Fight Day

Please see Talk:Flash_mob#Worldwide_Pillow_Fight_Day Mkdw ^talk 17:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pillow fight flash mob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]