Deletion of List of people who have been pied

Comment: what is indiscriminate information is not precisely defined, and this article does not fall under any of the obvious criteria at #INDISCRIMINATE.  This list is Wikipedia:Lists_%28stand-alone_lists%29#Appropriate_topics_for_lists|not too general or specific, and its content is Wikipedia:Attribution|verifiable. Claiming it is  is not a strong argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC)

Comment: per #DIRECTORY|Wiki is not a directory of people who have been assaulted in public. Best case mergeto pieing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I see that that is not going to happen now, as my last two attempts at voting delete have been interrupted by keep votes. However I will still lay out my arguement that it is not encyclopedic. It could be the best article in the world, and I'd want it deleted. And speaking of |Ignore all Rules, I'm struggling for not only a person to back me up, but a policy as well! I do not understand how a list on 'people who have been pied' is ever going to be useful, to be perfectly honest. I also do not see why it should be on Wikipedia. Remember, humourous as it may be, Wikipedia is not made for humour. However, I concede that this article is well done, so I wouldn't worry too much if it were to stay
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Subtrivial and crufty.   an indiscriminate collection of information and all that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Incredibly trivial, but extremely well cited and maintained, far more so than most lists that teeter on the listcruft edge.  I'd say this is a good example of |Ignore all rules
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: This article is an extension of pieing.  Also, pieing (and incidents of pieing) apparently seems to receive quite a bit of coverage.  I am unconvinced by arguments to delete, which so far have been  (including the nom's reasoning), "no need reason to publicize and thereby encourage this type of assault" (I doubt people do things ''just'' so they can end up being mentioned on WP; it's much easier to just create a hoax article), and #IINFO.  The last one is rooted in a guideline, but even a cursory examination of #IINFO shows this list does not qualify any of the 8 categories of articles that are listed there as inappropriate.  On a different note, it may be appropriate to merge the info to Pieing (not too long an article) so that the content is better organized
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTUSEFUL||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: as trivial.  The above arguments that it is  and  do not establish that the list is in any way encyclopedic.  A ''heavily'' modified and pared-down list of only the more significant 'victims' could be '''merged''' back in to the parent article but this list itself should not remain and is nothing more than a trivia repository.  The above keep votes have even conceded the fact that the article is trivial in nature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL||WP:ITSFUNNY)