Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire alarm pulling

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 Delete --JForget 00:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fire alarm pulling

No, let's not pull it. That's a felony. Voortle (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a felony. ― LADY GALAXY 21:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, it's done. We may report illegal acts without condoning them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to have been created because a 17 year old girl at Greater Lawrence Technical School (Massachusetts?) pulled a fire alarm on a dare. If this article had been here, she would have known better, right? Wrong. "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". Mandsford (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not it's a felony is irrelevant. It's just not notable an activity. The article uses the term "epidemic" and then has a link to a source where it happened once. Torc2 (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the original rationale is somewhat unusual. I don't see what makes this particular act (like Torc2, I agree that it's hardly an "epidemic" based on the source) notable. At a pinch, something could be merged into an article about pranks, but even then... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Wikipedia should have articles on felonies. This should join Murder, Rape, Treason, and other articles to form comprehensive coverage of illegal acts. The particulars that are in the article now, and the article history, aren't particularly relevant to deletion. Fg2 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - You know, I despise WP:OTHERSTUFF with a passion, but this is one place it's applicable. Murder, Rape, and Treason aren't included in Wikipedia just because they're felonies. They're included because they're independently notable and people care about them. When you look up the crime statistics for a city, they don't include "Murder" "Rape" "Burglary" "Assault" "Pulled Fire Alarm Pranks". There's no basis for saying a felony is notable just because it's a felony. Torc2 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The statistics you have in mind are for violent crime; you're certainly right that this is not a violent crime. But at least one state legislature and governor were moved to enact a law making it a felony. That makes it noteworthy. And yes, felonies are noteworthy. Not just violent crimes. It's probably a criminal act in other states, and in some other countries too. A search for "making a false alarm" (including the quotation marks around this phrase) will yield more information. Excluding the words "probability" and "ROC" will make the search more pertinent. Adding "statutes" brings up information on Idaho, Maryland, Rhode Island and Utah. Fg2 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with fire alarm: if the content is already included, then all is good. LinaMishima (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to fire alarm - not a notable topic as a stand-alone entry, but some content could be put inside the target article. I found a few sources - [1] [2]. There are probably more out there.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to fire alarm per the last two above Doc Strange (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to merge. The context section is own research, and the example of a single incident was not adding any encyclopedic content to this article, so I removed it. If notable, (which I doubt), it might belong in an article about the person, school or area it happened in. I also added sourced content that provides a less POV definition for this term, but I still say delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:41, 20 January 2008 (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.