Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raw (rolling paper)


 * 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 was   delete. Going through the discussion here, I have discounted the votes from single purpose accounts who, at best, appear to have been recruited for voting in this AFD. Such canvassing skews the numbers and we cannot therefore take them into account unless we are willing to compromise the integrity of the AFD system. Many of the keep votes that are discounted were providing rationales that are irrelevant to inclusion and deletion anyway.

The valid argument remaining on the keep side is Miniapolis, who pointed out the product reviews in the article as relevant sourcing. However, she has not received any further support for his viewpoint, and while product reviews are relevant in an article on the product it is far from clear that they provide a sufficient basis for notability. (Many sorts of products are tested or reviewed in some sort of magazine, and declaring that each of the test subjects can then have an article using that review as a source would allow a much wider range of articles than what appears to be current practice.) Miniapolis' point is valid, but it is not a deal-breaker that mandates deletion, and with the consensus against her, she winds up being a dissenting voice here.

As for the other arguments about the product being mentioned in lyrics, a look through the sources showed that the only one making a point out of it was the company website behind this product. That is insufficient basis for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Raw (rolling paper)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is a non-notable product and does not contain any sources. Article was declined for speedy deletion due to it being a product. Agree that it does not fit speedy deletion criteria so bringing it here for discussion. Unable to locate any reliable and independent sources to support any claims in the article. Plenty of retail websites selling the product but nothing talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and depth of coverage in reliable sources. MoreLessLEI (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to find sufficient sources to indicate that this product meets the general notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP - Person who nominated it is a competitor, upset that their Jaspen Rolling Papers page was speedy deleted (view his contributory history, his only contributions were to create his Jaspen page, his Jaspen pictures, then when deleted he went after the pages of the brands he says he copied in his other posts). Even with a COI as big as this Jaspen guy's, the page still does need to be reviewed by admins.  Please allow admins as much time as possible to review or, just speedy keep and thanks! Docvegetal (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The best thing you can do is address the sourcing in the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the admin who declined the speedy. Although I quickly saw that it didn't qualify for A7 speedy (as MoreLess notes, A7 doesn't include products), I initially planned to speedy delete it as G11 (spam), until I noticed that the earliest versions were much more neutral.  Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree 100% with your assessment about not speedy deleting the article. I should have went here instead from the beginning. Consensus would be better for this article anyway. At least in my opinion. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY KEEP Looks like article is cleaned properly and nomination was not genuine. Brand is notable, probably one of the biggest out there by now. Section should be added for the new products though. Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - So instead of making it more neutral, we are going to promote it by adding new products? As with the other page nominated for deletion, there needs to be significant coverage from independent and reliable sources to establish notability. Just because it is "probably one of the biggest out there" doesn't make it notable. It is what the sources say about it that makes it notable, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you can point me to those sources, I would be glad to take a look and reconsider my nomination. I am also curious if any of the trade magazines that you write for have been used as references on any of these articles. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

*Comment This page has been nominated before, perhaps by the same person. Please see the archived discussion and the result was KEEP. Decision to Keep Raw (rolling paper) Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a nomination for deletion of a Talk Page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:RAW (rolling paper)/Archive1, not of the article . --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm getting too old for this... Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Music Quotes - While music quotes may contain the words Raw, how do we know they are talking about Raw Rolling Papers? Also, they are considered "trivial mentions" and not "significant coverage." Please refer to Wikipedia general notability guidelines on significant coverage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline). --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - First nobody gets "too old for that". Second to the Jaspen papers page creator MoreLessLEI your comment does not seem genuine. Singers singing about raw papers, long ones and you are saying they're not singing about raw papers? Moreover I don't think there truly is anything I could do to get a personMoreLessLEI  who created a page Jaspen Rolling papers, then had their page deleted, then they tried speedying brands that compete with Jaspen Rolling papers, then when that didn't work they tried listing the pages as regular deletions, to change their mind.  It would be like asking the NRA to allow an anti-gun bill to pass...  Your conflict is so large that I am asking you to stop commenting on pages that are related to Jaspen Rolling papers or its competitors. Allow admins to make the decision for themselves, as they did when they deleted your Jaspen Rolling papers page (sorry, I know you're upset about it but revenge is not the way to resolve your anger). On the Jaspen Papers website it preaches taking the high road which I hope you'll take. Docvegetal (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for your misguidance. First, I am not a competitor of any of these companies. I have used the products and I did create the Jaspen page. I do not believe that you were the one who recommended it to be deleted. I believe it was an IP address user so I am not sure what your involvement is there unless you are using multiple accounts, know the IP user, or have some close connection that would give you a COI. I do not care about Jaspen or their "high road" as again I am not them. As far as allowing admins to make a decision, I have not interfered with that it any way. You on the other hand have continued to attack me for nominating the pages as opposed to supplying information that would lead an administrator to agree that the articles are notable. I do have the right to state my case and will gladly listen to your side and change my point of view. I simply ask that you state "why the article is notable" despite it being just another brand of rolling papers; and, "point me to the sources" that establish that notability. That is your best case as opposed to attacking me for my point of view. Again, I will be glad to reconsider my recommendation and it would be helpful to persuade administrators if you are able to answer the two points above.--MoreLessLEI (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm incorrect or misguided. Let's look at the images you uploaded and the release you gave when you uploaded them in OTRS. You uploaded them via email and released them as the author 'Jaspen Papers'. Immediately upon your brand page Jaspen_Papers being speedy deleted by Admins you went in and asked that the brands which compete with Jaspen papers to be deleted too.  Is any of this incorrect? Docvegetal (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I tried to stay off this page at your request, but you do not seem to get it. Yes, the image was uploaded by me and the image was uploaded with the permission of Jaspen papers. If I upload a picture of a Chevy Corvette, does that mean that I am an executive with GM? Please understand copyright laws and the policies that govern Wikiepdia regarding use of images prior to making any additional accusations. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Can we focus on whether the subject of the article meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia please? Docvegetal, you need to address the quality of the sources in the article; significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind if I ask you for assistance? No matter how many articles and links I ad though, the conflicted nominator is going to say they're not enough because of his conflict.  Could I ask you to do a quick google search and assist in putting up more references.  Just added a few more myself. I think if you read this you'll understand just how notable this brand is.  Remember that we have an entire topic page dedicated to Rolling paper.  RAW is one of the biggest and certainly the most authentic rolling paper brand in the world; http://www.rawthentic.com/alcoy.html  Please have a look at the link and you'll understand.  Docvegetal (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the brown one all my friends smoke, very notable Calqwatch (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC) — Calqwatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Very old and innovative paper; I think raw is one of the most copied brands now for I have seen many others now that suddenly look like it. I see over 12 references, definitely keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacNighttt (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)  — MacNighttt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP This article should be kept here simply because the person nominated it did so wrongly. It is a good brand of papers and one of the best I have ever used. I think there are plenty of people wanting this kept so please do so and warn the person who nominated it. --SemiSweetMorsal (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — SemiSweetMorsal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I have to agree with the keep voters here. Raw is mentioned in songs all the time. If famous people are using them and singing about them, how can they not be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseTwist (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)  — WiseTwist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: The bombardment of SPAs here is outstanding. The smell of sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry is strong. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to agree. I have been trying to tay off of the page as I believe that User:Docvegetal is making my case for me by adding in refernces that do not come close to showing notability. However, this is getting rediculous. There are many accounts on here who have simply decided to come on and vote. Finally, Mr. Doc is also canvassing Wikipedi for keep votes, which has to be a violation of Wikipedia. If they are canvassing for votes here, I wonder about how they are canvassing for votes outside of Wikiepdia which may also explain the number of first time editors who voted keep on this article. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable sources independant of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is now sourced (although the bare URLs need cleaning up). I've seen worse.  Mini  apolis  14:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Article is now sourced" - That is true. Is has been sourced for a week or so. The problem is that the sources are either from insignificant sources, do not cite the content of the article, are passing mentions (the music), and just do not meet the criteria for references to establish notability. Can you point out the specific sources that you feel are good to support an article in Wikipedia? Also, "seen worse" - I have too. The problem is that WP:OSE would come into play. Unfortunately, I do not see keeping an article simply because there are "worse" articles out there. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The product reviews (about the article's subject) are appropriate for an article of this type.  Mini  apolis  03:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Snowball Delete - Can we get this over with per Snowball clause? No one who has voted keep has been able to point out the reason why the article is notable. Those who state it is notable refer to references that are self-published, are not independent, and do not even come close to establishing notability for this page. If there are no references now, then the page should be created after there are. The one-time voters for "keep" are only votes, not a consensus. As this process will continue with new editor "keep" votes and the addition of poor references, I see no need to continue running it through the process. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2013 (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.