Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray's Pizza

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ray's Pizza

Is there a purpose to this page? I could see so if they were all a part of one particular company as franchises, but as the article reads, it's just a coincidence. That's like trying to talk about Tommy's Burgers in LA, where there are tons of places there (including the regionally-famous company of that name). A cute piece of minutae isn't enough to earn this a wiki entry, IMHO. --Mitsukai 03:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think it's interesting, though I wonder if it could be merged somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Hi Wikipedia, I wrote the article. Not to be rude, but why did you call my article "nonsense" and "speedy" delete it earlier? I looked at the procedures for deleting and I don't think my article is "nonsense." Frankly, if you're going to insult articles people write and blank them out immediately, I think your attitude to contributors is awful. And if you don't live in New York--which you obviously don't--you don't have any right to decide whether an article about Ray's Pizza is nonsense. Oh well, off my soapbox for now... Thanks for reading.
• By the way, did you mention Tommy's?
• I'm assuming you deleted my Kennedy Fried Chicken contribution earlier, too? Please don't be a jerk.
  • The last three edits were by 66.65.88.245, whose contributions to Wikipedia have included, in total, the article being considered here, his comments to this vfd, and a minor vandalism of "hybrid". Cheers. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:06, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • No, I didn't touch your Kennedy Fried Chicken article. And insults aren't going to get anywhere. The point I am trying to make is that if you are talking about one particular chain of Ray's Pizza, that would be a case. But you're talking about several Ray's Pizza, not a particular chain. Yes, there's is Tommy's in LA, just as the article states. But being from LA myself, I know of at least fourteen other non-related burger joints in LA by the same name and have nothing to do with the Tommy's of that regard. Doing an article on one particular chain is fine, but what is the purpose of doing an article on a bunch of restaurants in the area whose only link is that they have the same name? It's not a single particular company you're talking about, it's a single coincidence. If there's a Ray's Pizza company that owns 17 restaurants in NYC, that's Wikiworthy, IMHO. But if there just happens to be seventeen unrelated Ray's Pizza places that just happen to have similar names, that's one for the phone books, not Wikipedia. --Mitsukai 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What's notable is the confusion surrounding Ray's Pizzas and their relation to one another, which has bitten many a newcomer to the city. And the so-called justification "NONSENSE" for deleting my article is simply a lie, and insulting to boot. Just because you don't know what an article is referring to doesn't make it NONSENSE. Come on.

But hey, I suppose maybe you don't know what the word "nonsense" means.

• Conditional keep, cleanup - if it can be verified that there are any truly notable "Ray's Pizza" locations (and given the description that there used to be one on every corner, at least some may have been)... I'd stretch so far as to say that with so many locations boasting the name, the earliest user may be inherently notable for having been the first "Ray's Pizza". -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:10, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability. K1Bond007 04:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "there are dozens of establishments named Ray's Pizza". RickK 04:36, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• WTF? (Delete) this is just... it's like copyrighting "Joe's Diner". It's... it's so generic, it's boredom-inducing. I'll go back to Vfd'ing non-notable bands thank you very much. Master Thief Garrett 05:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge, if there's something appropriate to merge it with. I agree with User:Starblind: it's interesting.--Plainsong 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Interesting" is not encyclopedic. RickK 06:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps not. But this article does have the potential to become encyclopedic, if it's not already. That's good enough for me.--Canoeguy81 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It describes a well-documented phenomenon. And it relates to trademark law -- which every Internet geek should be interested in. And it's interesting :-p ---Isaac R
• Weak Keep - There's a known flap about the Ray's Pizza establishment in New York City. If anyone can find out what it's about and what the outcome was, it would make an interesting article. Trylobyte 06:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the unaffiliated Ray's Pizzas didn't claim superiority or originality over each other, they would arguably be nonnotable, but many of them do. This is an interesting controversy dating back years; Google Groups has references to the Ray's dispute dating back to 1989. --Metropolitan90 06:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User has 15 edits.
  • In support of my previous comment, I would like to point out that the ubiquity of Ray's Pizzas has been referenced on such shows as The Simpsons and Seinfeld: KRAMER (on telephone): I miss home, and I don't even know how to get there. JERRY: What's around you? KRAMER: I'm lookin' at Ray's Pizza. You know where that is? JERRY: Is it Famous Ray's? KRAMER: No. It's Original Ray's. JERRY: Famous Original Ray's? KRAMER: It's just Original, Jerry! If somebody adds a section about "Ray's Pizza in popular culture," will it have a chance?--Metropolitan90 15:13, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've done so now. ----Metropolitan90 01:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep!!! not to support the above tone of whoever wrote the article, but "Ray's Pizza", as a concept, is a VERY important NYC establishment that deserves to be here, regardless of who owns them and despite the controversy. they really really are on every block. On the Daily Show someone once told jon stewart that she lived "by the starbucks," and his instant response was "that's like saying you live by the Ray's!!" "Ray's" as a whole, not the first one, not the legal battle, not the one company that owns seventeen, but the concept, the Ray's on Every Corner. It's that sort of place, something that is inextricably linked with the very idea of pizza- and just as strongly, the city itself- for virtually anyone who lives in the city. It is absolutely notable, not in any way equivalent to some 15 year old kid's garage band or someone promoting his copyright on "Joe's Diner". The world is a big place, and to the millions living in New York, Ray's is very significant. Most people think of the Statue of Liberty or the empire state building when they think of New York; most people who live there think of Ray's. It is part of home. --Heah (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: The IP who wrote this and who has been storming around screeching insults is one thing, but the article is absolutely a speedy candidate. There is no content. A statement of a negative is not a statement. Please, folks, vote on the article, and not the topic. So, given the long story on this subject on The Next Big Thing radio show (WNYC) in 2002, all we get from this person is "It's not one thing." Gosh. Then the Kennedy's Fried Chicken? Is there only one Kennedy's Fried Chicken in only one city, and are they all subsumed under the same negative? Is Ray's actually significant elsewhere? The story was presented on The Next Big Thing as a minor bit of humor. No content. It should be speedied again, and the yahoo who keeps recreating it is about to get blocked for his actions. Geogre 11:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • (psssst... no threat-like posts...) but I agree about the (non)notability. Master Thief Garrett 11:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No threat. I meant that as a statement of future intent, not a "behave or else." Recreating deleted articles with personal attacks in the edit lines is noxious, vandalizing behavior. (This "IP" seems to know what the deletion logs say. Similarly, this "IP" is simply recreating deleted content rather than using VfU, which is process, while simultaneously pretending to be a newbie who is bitten.) At any rate, folks need to remember that they're being asked to consider the article, and not the topic. The reason is that we end up keeping utter junk that way, as everyone passes the buck onto that imagined future editor who might, someday, write the article that VfD voters imagine is lurking inside the lump of dross before them. If VfD voters want to write the imagined article, then that's fine, but "maybe I think there was a legal case about this once" won't do it, IMO, until that content is actually within the article. We don't need articles saying "The International Home of Pancakes is not IHOP" or "Hojos is not Howard Johnsons" or (and this happens) "X restaurant in Mumbai is a lot like other restaurants, but it's different." Geogre 11:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, but your position of "vote on the article, and not the topic" is out of step with both policy and common voting procedure. Not-so-great articles on decent topics should be expanded, or sent to cleanup or attention, not deleted. Please see Deletion Policy for explanation, in particular the "Problems that don't require deletion" table. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is in contradiction with neither. Let's put it this way: let's say that our IP friend wrote an article that said "Ashlee Simpson is not Jessica Simpson. She's a skank!" Now, should that be kept? The fact that an article might be written does not mean that a particular article should be kept. In fact, one would wish to scratch the original and not preserve in its history the libel. The guidelines speak of "not so great" articles on good topics, not "weak, useless articles on topics that might, if handled by an expert, be worthwhile." Since deletion guidelines also call for the deletion of non-encyclopedic content and the speedy delete criteria advocate the deletion of articles without content, I'd say that the "send to clean up" option is not appropriate for feeble stubs. Were it to be so, then we would be leaving articles in that say "The apolo missions were really cool they went to the moon" and "Mars is a planet thats red." Finally, that advice is to those who are going to nominate an article for deletion. Once it's on VfD, consider the article, not the topic, unless you are going to rewrite. If you are going to rewrite, please inform the voters, so they can reconsider. Geogre 13:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Threat or not, complaints about the behavior of other users are out of place here.---Isaac R 17:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-topic. Radiant_* 15:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to apologize for losing my cool yesterday. I still don't think it's very nice to pretend you welcome contributions on the one hand, and then turn around and insult people and delete their additions for no good reason (yes, I read the "speedy" delete rules, and my articles don't qualify as "nonsense," thank you very much...) but, whatever--this is your site, treat people how you like. Delete both of 'em, I don't care anymore. Thanks for your help, Heah. 66.65.88.245 15:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (but cleanup). I agree with Heah and others that the "Ray's Pizza" phenomenon is definitely notable among New Yorkers, ex-New Yorkers, and people who have been to New York (which covers a lot of us) ;-). RussBlau 22:12, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up. Referenced in a Seinfeld episode which indicates that it is significant. [1]Capitalistroadster 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Personally I prefer to eat at Joe's. Klonimus 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NYC notability, plus trademark law notability (I'm pretty sure there was litigation about the name). JamesMLane 02:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's almost like a painfully slow description of an inside joke, but this one belongs here if pop culture references are allowed anywhere. 11 million New Yorkers get it. Isn't that enough? --Unfocused 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • How many millions are there *outside* NY? I really don't know that in the worldview something in one city is that incredible. It's not pop culture, it's just one city. Now if it was known all across America, then yes. Master Thief Garrett 04:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if that should matter. pop culture references abound (three major tv shows listed here already); but despite that, if 11 million people get it, why shouldn't it be here? some language only spoken by 2,000 people deserves to be here, without it having any impact on the world at large, without it being known by more than two thousand people. In the world view, LOTs of things are important, in all different places, to all different people, and there is no reason that wikipedia can't reflect them all. --Heah (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And I'll tell you why. I'm a new comer to New York City, I've only been here about a year and a half and even I know that Ray's Pizza is part of New York culture. References are made to it on TV shows, in the Movies, on the radio and even in conversation. I even live across the street from "Famous Original Ray's Pizza Est. 1964" which I know with almost certainty that it is not the original Ray's Pizza, and I've only lived here a year and a half. I came to Wikipedia to see if I could figure out where and when the real original Ray's Pizza was established. This entry is needed so that a part of New York culture can be explained. It could use some more content and research about where and when the original was established as well as a better explanation of the phenomenon. But this one is a keeper. -- kuwan
• Keep. Truly a New York icon. Rhobite 04:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• keep its well documented and in seinfeld too Yuckfoo 17:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. '

You know what? Just go ahead and delete it. Delete the KFC article too. This whole thing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth (har har). Deride my articles as "nonsense" and "useless trivia", delete them without considering that maybe, just MAYBE, they refer to phenomena of which you PERSONALLY happen to be unaware, and then--in a final insult--imply that I'm a liar (Geogre's comments above) and threaten to ban me? I mean, what the FUCK?

I don't think you DESERVE this article, frankly. So those of you who were so insistent this article should be deleted because I have some kind of ulterior motives--congratulations, you've won. Get rid of these, please.

• 66.65.88.245 04:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Pinhead", according to Geogre--thanks, buddy!)

• Keep and Clean Up It's significant due to multiple notable pop culture references. Needs to be expanded, however, in order to make that significance more clear. If it was fleshed out with all the details that users have added in this vote page it would be a far more substantial article. The Bob Talbot 04:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable to NYCers, pizza lovers, and name/trademark legislation. Kappa 04:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

As the original author of the page in question, I'd like to have it deleted. I'd just rather not contribute to this site at this time. Thanks for respecting my wishes.

66.65.88.245 16:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment This is obvious evidence that overly aggressive VfD'ing articles is hostile to new users. --Unfocused 17:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
    • not only that, but this CLEARLY should never have been a speedy delete; if i were a newbie and found such an article had been deleted WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS i would not go through the VfU- i mean, it was never VOTED for deletion- i would have put it back up. This thread clearly demonstrates both an abuse of speedy delete as well as the negative consequences of overly agressive VfD'ing. I don't know what evidence we have that this ip is not a newbie or is a vandal. The page was deleted CONTRARY to deletion policy, and it seems it will be staying here after all. i don't know how one person (out of 8 billion) can claim to know on their own what qualifies as "nonsense" and what is actually an important meme; i don't know why this kid got attacked, a block threatened, when really, whoever listed it for speedy deletion should be reprimanded and we all should be much kinder and DISCUSS things. Its a big world out there. --Heah (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure thing. Shouldn't we're getting such valuable content from this user that I can see why you'd be afraid of biting him. Mean of me to suggest that his vandalism of user pages would lead to a block. Awful, really, to suggest that the non-stop personal attacks in edit summaries might lead to a block. While the pity party rages, ask yourselves what it is that the contributor gave us. Look through the diffs. See how a sentence is so valuable that any amount of whinging, screeching, and paranoia from the user is worth putting up with in order to have. Please. The number of policies violated by this kiddie wiki author is piling up, but none of them should lead to a block, right, so that we can continue to get statements of negatives from this insightful editor? I can only say that I'm relieved that most of the other admins do have standards. Perhaps our IP editor can be such a great guy as to actually get an account now so that we can have a specific identity to deal with, and not just a floating address. Geogre 23:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, User:Heah, you really ought to look through the contributor's contributions. First thing was that I got given credit for speedy deletions of both of his creations, when I had deleted one. So, he called names. Then, however, he recreated instead of VfU. Then someone else did a proper VfD of a substub that stated a negative (so, gosh, it's now a conspiracy against Ray's Pizza and not just me). So, more personal insults. Deleting admin called a "douchebag," then "obviously never been to New York," etc. So, in the face of this childish taunting from the IP, you insist that the deletions were abuses? Those are very serious charges, and I hope that you will open an RfC on both (or perhaps three) of the admins who speedy deleted his articles, as well as the user who tagged his Kennedy's Fried Chicken for speedy deletion, as well, of course, as the person who made this nomination. Otherwise, do not make accusations of such a serious nature. If I am reacting strongly to your gestures, it is because you are attempting to make an amazingly feeble substub a cause for castigating the entire deletion process. I don't consider new IP's who do nothing but scream and insult to be valuable contributors, no. I do not consider single sentences to be articles. I do not consider the deletion of single sentence substubs to be "abuse" (!) as much as propriety. Hideous the way that you are making very, very serious charges in the name of virtuous protection of the poor little IP (who seems to know many profanities but no information). Geogre 03:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

first, if this conversation is continued, i'd lke to request that we continue it on user talk pages as it no longer has anything to do with whether or not this article will be deleted, but first i'm gonna post this. Second, I don't know what the heck you are talking about, geogre. I accused no one of deleting the page originally, as i had no idea who had done it. I already stated above that i thought the comments here from the ip were out of line. However, I have looked at the contributions from this ip and i'm not sure what your problem is. I haven't found the word "douchebag" used by him anywhere, although i very well may have missed it; I didn't see him call you any names on his post on your talk page, don't see a problem with his reasoning that if you were from new york you would know why ray's is notable, and think it is somewhat understandable for a newbie to get upset about things like this and react improperly, due both to their ignorance of how to go about things here and the hurt feelings that come with your first foray into something being quashed without discussion. His response was to ask us to please not be jerks, (without calling anyone a jerk), and recreating an article counter to general policy that was deleted with complete disregard for general policy, with edit sumaries along the lines of "i'm having trouble with the deletion process." You have a huge issue with him recreating the article without going through VfU, but i think its very important to note that the article was deleted without going through VfD and the ip was new here. I haven't searched through the history of your talk page, so i may have missed what you are calling his "vandalism". But he certainly wasn't insulting anyone before the article was deleted, and furthermore his vandalism has NOTHING to do with whether or not this article should be here, and whether or not it should have been VfD'ed according to policy. This is very important, so i'm going to say it again, in italics: the actions of this ip after the speedy delete have NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether or not the article should have been speedy deleted.

I am not attempting to "castigate the deletion process"; rather, i think it is important to use the deletion process. that's why it is here. I am not trying to "make accusations of a serious nature" and don't think an RfC is necessary at this point. I just think that the articles should not have been speedy deleted, whoever did it, and whatever their reasons were; the results of the VfDs, that the article be kept and that the Kennedy article be merged, obviously give my point some creedence. These shouldn't have been speedily deleted.

apologies for dragging this on on this page. --Heah (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep now, after various additions to the orignal stub. Interesting pop culture phenomenon. Tupsharru 17:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep looks like notable. Grue 17:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep DS1953 18:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. --Carnildo 20:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Okay, since someone's calling for my head, I should probably explain a few things. For one, prior to nominating for deletion, I did a websearch for relevance. I found none. Whether or not your milage on Google may vary is different. Secondly, the original article was written in such a way that I found it very nonsensical; it was a poor choice of wording and I should have said pointless or irrelevant. As I said above, as the article was originally written, it's like writing on "Tommy's Burgers" in LA if you're referring to every restaurant in the area with the name and not the specific company - it's pointless that way (see the "Joe's Diner" comment above). I did not know about it's pop culture importance (because I'm not a TV watcher) and aside from a layover in JFK, I've never been to NYC, so I wouldn't know about it being on every street, much less the legal issues surrounding it. Had the article been in any condition as it is now (or at least given the hint that it was anything beyond a bunch of restaurants that just happen to have the same name), I would have stubbed it, not VFD'd. As it is now, by all means I agree keep, but I made the call I did for the reasons I did. No apologies (except possibly to the original poster if he/she felt I was on some sort of personal vendetta, which was not the case), no regrets. --Mitsukai 20:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mitsukai, you shouldn't have to apologize. Folks coming in late and shedding crocodile tears for the innocence abused of someone who can only manage "Ray's Pizza is not Ray's Pizza" should not be in a position of calling for your head, either. The fact that later editors have made the article worthwhile is good, and they should each be applauded. However, the article as nominated was a speedy deletion candidate and was speedy deleted. I believe that all those folks who rescued this feeble effort should be rewarded, and they should be proud of their names in the edit history to the article. However, I don't see why the original submission needs to be honored in any way whatsoever. A phone book could have suggested the topic, as well as those pop culture shows, as well as the syndicated The Next Big Thing radio show (which contained more information in ten seconds than our contributor could muster). I hope we continue to get good treatments of pop topics, but those who believe that I'm threatening unreasonably or intimidating the trembling virgins need to wake up and re-read that original submission. The nomination was valid. The rescue was heroic. The original writing was anemic. Geogre 23:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. I disagree with your VfD, but I don't think you were totally offbase in making it. We're only talking about you because many people don't know who to have a discussion without turning it into a personal attack. That is never appropriate. ---Isaac R 00:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to what is stated above, the first two paragraphs of the article (as it now stands) are wholly of my authorship. Would it bother anyone if I just removed these two paragraphs? Maybe someone else can rewrite their content. Otherwise, just add them back. 66.65.88.245 20:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be an ass, but I put the content back. The article doesn't make sense without them there, and content submitted to Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL. I did note that a rewrite would be welcome in the edit summary; I'll go back and add that to the talk page. My own opinion is that the first two paragraphs that I restored are extremely well written, and they could be rephrased, but I think they'd be hard to beat for the way they fit into the article in its current form. Again, I'm sorry if I seem an ass, but this is the sort of thing that the GFDL was written for; to make sure that content submitted is always available freely. --Unfocused 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting and notable. --Theo (Talk) 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable NYC culture. I didn't go back to look at the original article which was probably a lot weaker, but the current article is satisfactory. Quale 05:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, culturally encyclopedic. —RaD Man (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG KEEP! The phenomena that is the ubiquity of Rays Pizzas here in New York is certainly worthy of an article. The current one could certainly use a thorough cleanup and expansion, but the concept is most definitely notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.