Talk:Tiki Ti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, which collaborates on articles related to Polynesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] From VfD
Advertising for non-notable bar. RickK 05:26, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Non-notable? I wasn't aware this article existed before just now, but the bar itself is one of the most well-known establishments in Southern California. A Google search for the name, with or without quotes, brings up (literally) myriad results, all relevant; at any rate, I certainly grew up hearing about it. The article is in dire need of a clean-up, but it's a definite keep. Austin Hair 05:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Needs a clean up, but its a very notable place. --KenV 05:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Clean up and removal of advertising: It has no employees? Very weird. You can see two different hands at work, at least. One is a Wikipedia-appropriate one, and one is not. Geogre 13:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. OMG, Los Angeleans are second only to New Yorkers in thinking they live in the center of the universe. I live in the same state, and frequent bars, and have never heard of this. "tiki ti" only gets 600 hits. (compare to 16,000 for "tiki hut", which doesn't have an article). If this stays, expect articles on The Oasis, Murphy's Law, and Blinkys, "notable" bars in MY neighborhood. "The Oasis, known to many as "The Bat Cave" for its dark, cramped atmosphere..." "Murphy's Law is in the popular Murphy Street neighborhood of Sunnyvale, and features live classic rock music on the weekends. ..." "Blinkys sports bar is on the renowned El Camino Real, and features live classic rock music on the weekends..." Note, KenV's only edits are here and the subject article--suspect original contrib of article. No employees? What, the waitstaff is all volunteer? Niteowlneils 14:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- All this for a one sentence stub on a notable bar on Sunset, hmmm I reedited my first entry to an approprate one. California Smoking Law is ment to protect the employees, the oweners do not have employees, they do everything themselfs. --69.33.44.66 17:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That helps explain some of it. You do see how confusing it was in the article to say that it was a place with no employees? If this is as famous as Tiki Hut, then realize that most of us will re-examine the article before the end of VfD voting and review our votes. Geogre 17:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! Los Angeles landmark referenced on our Sunset Boulevard page. jengod 18:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If jengod says it's an L.A. landmark worth keeping, then it's an L.A. landmark worth keeping. -- Decumanus 06:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - POV. In Canada, Toronto claims to be the center of the universe. I'm sure every country can claim a metropolis arrogant enough to make the same claim, and at least one bar in said metropolis arrogant enough to proclaim itself monarch. Denni☯ 02:06, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
- The article makes no claim that the bar exists at the center of the universe, or any claim of any superiority whatever. I can only assume that you're not referring to the actual content, or even the name, but rather the article's very existence. Given this assumption, I ask: how is this a violation of WP:NPOV? Austin Hair 02:36, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I claim only that a fricking =bar= has no place in Wikipedia, unless someone famous drank there regularly, or a notable person committed suicide on the premises, or some other event occurred which elevates it above any other similar liquor-serving establishment in Backwash, Indiana (where the same fun can be had at half the price). Plain and simple, this bar is irrelevant to five decimal places to the world's population - what reason other than fondness for the establishment or vanity could there be for including such an article? Denni☯ 02:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
- Nobody notable drank there regularly? Amongst the many famous regular patrons of the Tiki Ti have been some key figures in the underground rock scene of the 1980s, such as the members of The Cramps, Jeffrey Lee Pierce, Bob Forrest, and many others. It was the post-punk scenester crowd who discovered the bar, previously a neighborhood joint little known outside of what was then a relatively obscure part of L.A.
- In fact, you claimed that this article was POV in the lead sentence of your first post, which is a very different argument from the one upon which you've now decided to fall back. Significance, you secondary argument, is relevant to this vote, and I simply argue that a notable landmark in what is unarguably a notable city can rightfully be considered to be both encyclopedic and significant to a sizable portion of our audience. Neither Pikachu nor Giraldus Cambrensis are of any interest to "five decimal places of the world's population," but they both (quite appropriately) have their place in Wikipedia. Austin Hair 02:26, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
- And I still think that a sentence like "It is considered by many to be the very epitome of the Tiki tavern style" is POV unless you have some demonstrative proof that "many" ≠ "me". And what precisewly is "...a sizable portion of our audience..."? The hundred odd regulars? The few thousand who have visited because of its "notability", or the few (being generous) tens of thousands who have heard of it? Both Pikachu and Giraldus Cambrensis have notability to a hugely larger audience than this article. I stand by my vote. Denni☯ 18:47, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:NPOV? "It is considered by many" is precisely the way to state a particular viewpoint while not actively espousing it. In fact, I don't personally hold an opinion either way, and did not write that tidbit in the first place. I did rephrase it per the NPOV policy. As for the bar's prominence as a Los Angeles landmark, perhaps you'd best leave that judgment to LA residents and tourists—i.e. those actually qualified to judge. I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to speak for the popularity of a site in Jakarta, having never even been there. Austin Hair 23:13, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
- And I still think that a sentence like "It is considered by many to be the very epitome of the Tiki tavern style" is POV unless you have some demonstrative proof that "many" ≠ "me". And what precisewly is "...a sizable portion of our audience..."? The hundred odd regulars? The few thousand who have visited because of its "notability", or the few (being generous) tens of thousands who have heard of it? Both Pikachu and Giraldus Cambrensis have notability to a hugely larger audience than this article. I stand by my vote. Denni☯ 18:47, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
- I claim only that a fricking =bar= has no place in Wikipedia, unless someone famous drank there regularly, or a notable person committed suicide on the premises, or some other event occurred which elevates it above any other similar liquor-serving establishment in Backwash, Indiana (where the same fun can be had at half the price). Plain and simple, this bar is irrelevant to five decimal places to the world's population - what reason other than fondness for the establishment or vanity could there be for including such an article? Denni☯ 02:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
- The article makes no claim that the bar exists at the center of the universe, or any claim of any superiority whatever. I can only assume that you're not referring to the actual content, or even the name, but rather the article's very existence. Given this assumption, I ask: how is this a violation of WP:NPOV? Austin Hair 02:36, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --Dittaeva 20:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
[edit] photoreq
removing photo request. photo has been added. Minnaert 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
