Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La canna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, even though this isn't Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, because it redirects to an article that was speedied as an obvious copyvio. —Cleared as filed. 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] La canna
First person plural phrases suggest an advertisement to me. Delete. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as commercial copyvio of http://www.lacanna.nl/en/introductie.html. --Interiot 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- But keep once it's rewritten. --Interiot 07:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete; have speedied the page it redirects to, La Canna. Flapdragon 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - check out google's 194,000 hits. OMFG! Claims to notoriety are massive. "Largest coffee shop in Amsterdam". Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. [1] and [2] seem to verify claims. Biggest coffee shop in a large, well known city like Amsterdam is very notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's also been written about in large amounts of newspapers, magazines etc with worldwide attention. It's one of Amsterdam's most famous marijuana houses. Of significant cultural significance worldwide. That it's written as an ad just means it should be tidied. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I meant my vote to pertain only to the current copyvio text. --Interiot 07:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously fix up copyvio problems first. But then keep. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, people can't exactly vote to keep or delete an article that doesn't yet exist, only on whether to delete the existing article, which was a blatant copyvio. Without the copyvio material there was nothing there at all. It's been deleted now, but of course that doen't stop someone writing the article as it should have been. Flapdragon 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think the default case is that anyone can mark something with {{Db-repost}} if a deleted article is posted again. So it may be necessary to make it clear that a vote is made without prejudice, that the voter intends to allow for the possibility of recreation in a different form. But I'm straying a bit far from WP:IAR here, so feel free to ignore me. :) --Interiot 17:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- As I understand it the repost thing is for where the content is identical (or as near as dammit) to the previously deleted article and therefore has already been the subject of a decision. It's about voting on an article, not a subject, after all. Flapdragon 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is it? I question that logic. For one thing, this is a collaborative, ever-evolving project, and the contents of an article can change and evolve rapidly as time goes by. Therefore, if we look at it from the Eventualist point of view, an article should be deleted based on its topic, not based on its contents. A secondary extension of this argument leads us to the whole issue about undeletion. If an article is deleted, as this one might be, due to for example Copyvio, then recreation could lead to an automatic speedy deletion per one of the definitions of Wikipedia:Vandalism, namely recreating a previously deleted page. Therefore, a valid topic, such as this one, could be forbidden from being able to be deleted. Therefore, articles should not be deleted based on contents - they should be deleted based on the topic. By the way, is there anywhere that I can go to discuss this? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, of course a valid article isn't blocked from being created just because one with the same title was previously deleted -- just check out WP:CSD. There's no point in maintaining an empty page consisting only of a title just in case someone might want to write the article one day, just as pointless as voting on whether to delete or keep an article that hasn't even been written yet. Have your theoretical debate by all means, perhaps at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy, but if you're going to vote on VfDs it would seem important to understand the process as it currently operates. Flapdragon 14:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Is it? I question that logic. For one thing, this is a collaborative, ever-evolving project, and the contents of an article can change and evolve rapidly as time goes by. Therefore, if we look at it from the Eventualist point of view, an article should be deleted based on its topic, not based on its contents. A secondary extension of this argument leads us to the whole issue about undeletion. If an article is deleted, as this one might be, due to for example Copyvio, then recreation could lead to an automatic speedy deletion per one of the definitions of Wikipedia:Vandalism, namely recreating a previously deleted page. Therefore, a valid topic, such as this one, could be forbidden from being able to be deleted. Therefore, articles should not be deleted based on contents - they should be deleted based on the topic. By the way, is there anywhere that I can go to discuss this? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- As I understand it the repost thing is for where the content is identical (or as near as dammit) to the previously deleted article and therefore has already been the subject of a decision. It's about voting on an article, not a subject, after all. Flapdragon 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think the default case is that anyone can mark something with {{Db-repost}} if a deleted article is posted again. So it may be necessary to make it clear that a vote is made without prejudice, that the voter intends to allow for the possibility of recreation in a different form. But I'm straying a bit far from WP:IAR here, so feel free to ignore me. :) --Interiot 17:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, people can't exactly vote to keep or delete an article that doesn't yet exist, only on whether to delete the existing article, which was a blatant copyvio. Without the copyvio material there was nothing there at all. It's been deleted now, but of course that doen't stop someone writing the article as it should have been. Flapdragon 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Obviously fix up copyvio problems first. But then keep. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I meant my vote to pertain only to the current copyvio text. --Interiot 07:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's also been written about in large amounts of newspapers, magazines etc with worldwide attention. It's one of Amsterdam's most famous marijuana houses. Of significant cultural significance worldwide. That it's written as an ad just means it should be tidied. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, since the article that this one La canna redirects to has been deleted, leaving the redirect hanging, surely it's time to close this debate and delete? Flapdragon 14:21, 3 December 2005 (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.
