Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (rolling papers)

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 delete. - brenneman ^{L} 01:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elements (rolling papers)

Looks like spam, the product (a brand of thin rice cigarette papers) is probably not very notable. Prod contested. Ioannes Pragensis 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Mostly unsourced POV. BlueValour 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Author must be an afficionado, this isn't the only brand he created an article for. See Pay-Pay also. Fan1967 21:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• DON'T DELETE! I am the author and yes I am a true aficionado. I write for two tobacco industry publications and I use RYO as a hobby and lifestyle. I have touched up the page and will replace the images to try and make it more suitable (if you feel it needs that). I tried to just create a simple page to get a discussion going, but it seems you guys want me to spend more time writing instead of just starting it. OK< I am writing away. --Mrtobacco 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Un-verified or -sourced POV and reads practically like adspam. SM247^{My Talk} 00:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable product. --Musicpvm 08:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• DON'T DELETE! Again I spent a lot of time writing that, if you feel it is not a notable product please first confirm that you are an enthusiast of Cigarette Papers. I am trying to get other enthusiasts / collectors to post more info and such, but if someone who doesn't even smoke is allowed to delete an article written by someone who does (and is an authority on such), that wouldn't seem quite fair. I don't think I wrote it as promotional text but please feel free to modify it to make it less promotional and more informative. The text I have added and others have added to the Zig Zag & JOB pages is quite similar so I don't understand the difference really? Article has been redone, anything that seemed promotional is gone and thus hopefully it now passes muster. Please post your opinion below, new opinions should be placed towards the top since the changes of JULY 3, 2006;--Mrtobacco 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dear Mrtobacco, it is not a good idea to remove the first deletion reason in the heading of the article (or any other texts here unless they are clear vandalisms). Moreover all Wikipedians are allowed to speak here, both smokers and non-smokers.
  • Regarding your claims: Please, give us some reasons why to believe that the brand is notable and that the article is not pure advertising. For example: It is a very old brand (say 30+ years in existence)? Is there a book or film where it is prominently featured? Is it the market leader? - I think that most of us would like to keep the article in Wikipedia, but it should contain strong and sourced reasons why the brand is notable. Please read WP:V and WP:IMP. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am sorry but I don't know enough about the brand to respond to your questions. For me it is very notable because it's the only gummed rice paper that is still produced. I like the marketing of it (the Elements girls and the holographic packages) and I really like the way it burns. It's my favorite white paper, and based on my collection of more then 1,000 packs, for me to say that it really does mean a lot. I don't know the sales data nor the full history (or if it's been in movies etc..) although I have emailed the manufacturer to ask.
• delete as per SM247 Pete.Hurd 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep Pete- see above that Sm247 was before article was updated--216.65.228.166 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment My opinion still stands in respect of the current version, it has not improved sufficiently. SM247^{My Talk} 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Would you mind re-writing it in a way that you feel is better then? Or perhaps showing me some product articles that you think are better? Also please just be really sure that you are not an anti-tobacco person :( They always hate me :( --Mrtobacco 11:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am unashamedly anti-tobacco, but don't take it personally. :) I just don't think this product is notable enough for Wikipedia. It is important we have articles about smoking and tobacco paraphernalia, but not to the point of a page for each brand and product. It's not really a question of rewriting. SM247^{My Talk} 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could you, Mrtobacco, perhaps include the information from this article into an article with broader scope, e.g. Rolling papers?--Ioannes Pragensis 06:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Ug, you're one of those people that hate me eh :( OK sure I certainly do not have the Wiki experience that you do, and I will therefore bow-out and do my best to add that text to a different page. I'm reluctant to add it to the Rolling Papers page because any talk of brands there leads a user named "Lostsociety" to put in blurbage about his company's products (Bambu). Ie if I talk about JOB Rolling papers being the top seller in Chicago, he will delete that and replace it with Bambu related text every time. Maybe you would consider locking the Rolling papers and Bambu articles to stop this barrage of gunfire from him (he uses other aliases as well)? When I get back from Virginia (running around in the tobacco fields....), I will try to dig deeper and maybe write an article about Rolling Paper Brands alltogether. Thanks for all your advice and such :) I guess you won't be helping me with the rewrite of the GITANES article (they were John Lennon's favorite cigarette, folklore has it that he smoked them to make his voice deeper and this is missing from the article) --Mrtobacco 06:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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.