Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juicy Jay's

Add links
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 was delete. The policy based arguments are firmly in favor of deletion. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Jay's[edit]

Juicy Jay's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a non-notable company without any sources. The information in the article reads like an advertisement for the company. 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 GNG. MoreLessLEI (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The user who nominated this just had his promotional/advertising page for a competing brand of rolling papers "Jaspen" taken down for violations. This seems to be an attempt at "wiki revenge". From a Wiki Standpoint, even this NFD is a violation and MoreLessLEI should be banned from all topics relating to rolling papers due to his COI. Juicy Jays is the only remaining brand of flavored rolling papers in the world and posted numerous links to suits with the federal government and fights with states to keep their brand alive over the years. If this brand and product isn't notable, than what is? Sorry Jaspen creator, this page needs to stay. http://www.cspnet.com/news/tobacco/articles/rolling-papers-vs-court-documents, http://www.smokersinfo.net/fda-sued-again-on-flavored-cigarette-ban/ I'll go in and clean up the links and take down the false NFD. Docvegetal (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Where to begin. First, I would request that you assume good faith WP:AGF. I am the creator of the article Jaspen Papers but the only connection that I have with them is that I use them more than any other brand. You state that there is a conflict of interest from me, which if using the product gives me a conflict then consider me guilty. According to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy WP:COI, I would not be barred from editing this topic or others simply because I use the product. If anything, I would be encouraged to edit the topics if I have personal, unbiased knowledge. Regarding the "Wiki revenge" accusation, I can tell you that I am not upset about the article being deleted. I used other articles as a template for it and felt that the one I wrote was far better referenced and notable than others. After the deletion, I simply looked at the others to find out how they were still on Wikipedia if they did not have any references. The ones that I felt did not meet the guidelines of notability I then sent to deletion discussion. Sorry if you feel this is revenge. I do question your conflict of interest. You seem to be pretty upset about this article being recommended for deletion. Are you an owner of representative of the company? If so, I would suggest that you become more familiar with the guidelines on conflict of interest. Also, I will be removing the rollingpapers.net link from the article again. It is a self-promotional link owned by the same company that owns Juicy Jay's. It is not a review site, but a promotional website. I have filed a blacklist claim on it for spam and will be supplying additional information to investigate the accusation [1]. Please allow the deletion discussion to go on without removing the template. Now, regarding the websites that you listed as references, these are not really the type of references that establish notability. Also, the information that you claim about it being the "only" and that it sues the government needs to be supported by references, not just in your statements. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Rollingpapers.net - Wikipedia policy on external links WP:EXT allow external links that contain "neutral and accurate material." As Rollinpapers.net is owned by the same company that owns Juicy Jay's and several other rolling paper brands, it is not a neutral and accurate source. It is a promotional site for the purpose of bringing credibility to the brands. I am not going to remove them for the moment so that the recommendation to put it on the spam list can show which articles they are located in. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Docvegetal removed the AfD template from the article before the AfD process was closed; I have restored it until the deletion process is complete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Colapeninsula, it was just so silly. Check the previous history you'll see this page was already NFD'd before and the decision was to Keep. Docvegetal (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I could not locate a previous deletion discussion on this topic. It may have been from a talk page discussion, but would have no bearing on this discussion.--MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of throwing around the COI accusation on other users, The nominator has a good arguement. A search has turned up hardley anything that can be considered as reliable source. I am not saying the topic is not notable, but so far the references in place are not reliable and nor is the topic in my opinion. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find sufficient sources to indicate that this product meets the general notability guidelines. I am also unable to find the previous AFD for this article which is mentioned above. Peacock (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More info: The nominator had tried to speedy delete this and other pages (could be mistaken on this one). When that didn't work he went to this full deletion request. He also tried getting sites that aren't favorable to him blacklisted, that didn't work either. You can check his contributory history to see what I mean. Anyway, have a look at the page in question (I updated it), if there are changes you think should be made that would make it keepable please let me know and I'll try to work on them. I think the page is maybe 10 years old now and has had several versions. The older versions had more information but might be too ad-like Docvegetal (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are other brands of rolling papers also. The article needs to have its footnotes added and formatted, but I don't see why it should be deleted. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for your input. I agree that there are other brands of rolling paper. The question is, what makes this one notable? The fact that there are other rolling paper articles falls into WP:OSE. If you could help me by telling me what makes this brand notable and also point me to the independent (other than Rollingpapers.net or RollYourOwn Magazine) and reliable sources that support the claim of notability? Thanks. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very notable, I take it the others don't smoke. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. A womens underwear company would be not-notable to most men, whereas a men's aftershave company would be notable if you follow what I'm saying. Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for the comment. I do follow what you are saying. Although a woman's underwear may not be notable to most men, that is not what governs notability on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability). The topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if you can point these sources out to me. On Wikipedia, notability is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the guidelines and policies set forth by consensus WP:CON.--MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks for both comments and I agree that this page is notable. The significant coverage in reliable sources is already laid out in the article, unless you don't agree that the court dockets and media are significant coverage. 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. Docvegetal (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References - You have not really done anything to help your case here. Besides blaming me for having a conflict of interest, you have offered very little evidence that this article is notable. I was hoping that you had additional sources than what you put in the article as these do not cut it for “significant,” “independent,” and “reliable” coverage. I have taken a look at the reference you have placed in the article:
Rolling Paper Warehouse – A retailer that distributes Juicy Jay Rolling Papers. Hardly independent. You can see from their Facebook page that they blatantly advertise rolling paper brands owned by HBI.
Roll Your Own Magazine – While “technically” you could make a case for independence, it is clear by the advertisements on the site that they are connected to HBI (the owner of Juicy Jay’s and Raw) by selling them advertising space. Also, the links to the site you provided is all promotional material which can hardly be taken as reliable.
Metrolyrics – As stated previously, we do not know if the lyrics in the song are actually referring to the rolling paper or not. Assuming that they are, this is just a passing mention and not “significant” coverage as outlined in Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:GNG.
Cspnet.com – While this may look like an independent publication, an Alexa search shows that it is related to the website smoothtobacco.com [2]. So much for independence
Tobacco.org – This is simply a syndication of the article listed above in cspnet.com. Cannot be considered an additional reference. It is a republication of the one above.
SmokersInfo.net – Don’t know what to make of this one. Seems like a well laid out website, but is it reliable? Alexa rank for the site shows it at 4,334,620. That is quite high if the source is credible. Also, even if this article was posted in the New York Times, suing someone does not make you notable. Many tobacco companies and manufacturers of tobacco products have sued the government. Companies cannot be notable simply based on one single event 99 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_for_only_one_event). If it were, maybe a redirect into the article Tobacco politics would be more appropriate?--MoreLessLEI (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References Though MoreLessLEI's comments are well written the conflict as being part of Jaspen Rolling papers is too large for anyone to give you credibility. I suggest you follow your own standards '8. Jaspen will not use deceptive, dirty or unethical online marketing tactics to trick rolling paper consumers.

9. Jaspen will be respectful and kind to others…even to those who knowingly lie about or disrespect our people, brand, or products. ' Please stop commenting on a competitors product. I'm sorry that your Wiki page was speedy deleted by Admins. The Jaspen Rolling Paper finished images you uploaded and did incorrect/incomplete releases for still need to be removed though. Please don't upload images without a proper release, it creates copyright issues for Wikipedia. If I could undo the Admins decision to delete your brand page I would. I can tell it's very important to you. Docvegetal (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRemember that we have a page here on Wikipedia for Rolling Paper. We have a whole topic on the subject. Juicy Jays is the only remaining major brand of flavored rolling papers in the world. They went so far as to sue the US Federal Government to remain in the marketplace. They are made in the town where rolling papers were first created (Alcoy Spain). They're a pretty big brand and have even been in movies. Have a look; http://www.juicyjays.com/history.html If this unique brand isn't notable, than it's unlikely that any rolling paper brand would be notable and the entire Rolling paper page should be deleted. Docvegetal (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This !vote is the editor's second edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — SemiSweetMorsal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy KEEP This is one of the best brands out there. If any rolling paper article should be in Wikipedia, Juicy Jay's should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REMI2013 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — REMI2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: This !vote is the editor's first and (so far) only edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As with the discussion on Raw Rolling Papers, there are many accounts on here who have simply decided to come on and vote as their first edit ever to Wikipedia. Not saying that it is wrong to do that, but it is funny how so many of them have come to this article and the Raw article. Also, canvassing for votes by [[User: Docvegetal] at these user's pages [3], [4] makes me wonder if they are canvassing for votes here, then their "off-Wiki" canvassing could be the reason for so many "keep" votes by first time users. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Delete - Can we get this over with per Wikipedia: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)[reply]
  • Conflict of Interest - Keep - The userMoreLessLEI has a serious conflict of interest and his posts should be ignored entirely (as well as his nominations). He posted photos as the author "Jaspen Rolling Papers", he doesn't even deny it. He's very upset that his brand page was speedy deleted by admins. Since there are many conflicting opinions here, it does not pass the Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Again, please take whatever this competitor of Juicy Jays says with a grain of salt bigger than a snowball in Jaspen... Docvegetal (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure why you continue to accuse me of being a competitor of the page but it is time to WP:DROPIT. By the way you write, it would appear that you are closely related to the company who owns Juicy and Raw and therefore you yourself have a conflict of interest. I have disclosed mine as that of a consumer of the product, you have failed to disclose anything. So, it would be good for you to disclose your COI for the administrator who will have to close this discussion. Also, I am getting pretty sick and tired of your accusations. I have done nothing but stick to Wikipedia policies during the nomination and throughout the discussion of this article. All you have done is continued to focus on ME and NOT THE ARTICLE. As such, I beg you (once again like I have done many times in the past) to tell me HOW JUICY JAY'S MEETS WIKIPEDIA NOTABILITY GUIDELINES WP:GNG. Unfortunately, there is no "keep for conflict of interest" policy. If anything, an article would be deleted for someone having a conflict of interest (such as you). There is a clause called the snowball clause which I cited and still request that it be used. There is no sense of continuing this discussion when all you are doing is making accusations and taking focus off of the article which is NOT NOTABLE! If you have an issue with me, please report me to the administrator noticeboard. Although you will be wasting their time, I would love for them to come and also comment on the article's notability. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes - I have removed the non-encyclopedic content from the article and removed references which have been shown (above) to be directly connected with either the company itself or a distributor of its products.@SmithAndTeam (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While trying to toe the line without making an accusation, it is funny how someone who's username is a promotion for their own advertising company comes on to Wikipedia after only making 2 edits in the last 2 months for the sole purpose of voting keep on this article. With that aside, your vote says the article should be kept with changes. Please tell me what changes you feel need to be made. Unfortunately, removing references does not do anything for notability. Also, you still left a reference to Roll Your Own Magazine which advertises the products. You should probably delete that reference as well. I would like to know, like I have asked others who have failed to respond with any logical explanation, how does this page meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:GNG?--MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing user: Please note that some users have voted more than once and thus, please pay attention when assessing this AfD. -- Cheers, Riley 21:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • Revive
This page should be revived for sure! Juicy Jay's are a fairly large brand and have a nice following. Why did this page even get deleted in the first place? SweetShawn999 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juicy_Jay%27s&oldid=1087632619"