Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hippie-related topics

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. --Core desat 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hippie-related topics[edit]

Indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics, with no well-defined criteria for inclusion, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --Eyrian 20:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Criteria added. Easily sourced to published works found in Hippie#References and topics covered in Hippie. List is not "loosely-associated" nor does it meet WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Half of the list is currently sourced directly to Chelsea Cain's The Hippie Handbook (ISBN 0811843203). The other half to the sources listed in the references of the hippie article. All of these topics are notable and directly related to the hippie movement itself, and either mentioned in the article on hippies or found in their related publications. —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new criterion is overly broad (and inaccurate, based on reading the articles). That criterion would allow anything that was mentioned in any association with a hippie eligible for this list. That an author of some books that might be read in certain psychedelic circles (Huxley) is listed alongside movements that are inexplicably linked with hippies speaks to how loose the association is. --Eyrian 21:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything "inaccurate" about the criterion, and it would most certainly not allow anything in the list per notability. The example you give proves my point. Not only was Stewart Brand (and many hippies) influenced by Huxley's The Doors of Perception, eventually leading him to meet the author; (Markoff, 2005) Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were also connected with Huxley; (Markoff, 2005) In the front matter for the 2005 Harper edition of Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited (ISBN 0060776099), Christopher Hitchens notes that Huxley's relationship with Leary attracted the Beatles and the Doors, leading the Beatles to put Huxley on the album cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and causing the American rock band The Doors to take their name from the title of Huxley's seminal book. The back matter of the same book calls Huxley's books, the "essential texts for the counterculture during the 1960s" and the publisher adds a similar statement to the back cover of the aforementioned version of The Doors of Perception (including Heaven and Hell) as well ("these two books became essential for the counterculture during the 1960s and influenced a generation's perception of life"). Huxley has been described as "a guru among Californian hippies" [1] in multiple sources. According to Tom Wolfe, Huxley was associated with the "mystic brotherhood" of like-minded counterculturists and hippies (MacCleary, 2004); Jay Stevens writes that the hippies "absorbed Leary and Huxley and Alan Watts, picking up those parts that struck a responsive chord, and dispensing with the rest. When a hippie claimed that "I'm from another race, not black, not white, maybe I'm of a race that's not here yet, a race without a name," what you heard were echoes of Huxley's evolutionary romanticism filtered throught the dog-eared science fiction epics that graced every hippie pad." (Stine, 1995) Multiple published sources emphasize the theme of the "wide-ranging influences" of the counterculture that drew on Aldous Huxley for inspiration. (Boggs, 2000) Even the original Psychedelic Shop, whose primary focus was selling books to hippies on Haight street, made a point of stocking Aldous Huxley by request. (Stine, 1995) The relationship between Huxley and subsequent drug use by the counterculture and Huxley's influence on the social history of the 1960s as a result is written about in dozens of sources. (Lee & Shlain, 1992) So we see that this isn't a loose association at all, contrary to your claim. —Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Even with the criteria added, it's still too loosely associated. Nor is it sourced. I don't think this could be improved, or even well sourced, as it's just too encompassing. I mean, what constitutes a "topic"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hippies are a subculture related to the counterculture of the 1960s. Hippie-related topics refers to anything notable in that subculture, and the list is for the most part, fully supported in reliable sources. That is to say, these are notable topics that have directly contributed to the cultural development of the hippie movement. This is not a loose association of topics. —Viriditas | Talk 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, that's all they have in common. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not following you. These topics compose the core, essential ethos of the 1960s hippie movements. Dozens of reliable sources describe them and record them in the historical record. These topics are highly important to any study of the hippie subculture, and understanding their mutual relationship provides the necessary insight required to comprehend their place in history. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I am a supporter or lists as differentiating from categories, there is nothing here that cannot be solved by a category. If there were narrative here, this would be a different story, but it's nothing but an indiscriminate list with no references and it's just whatever somebody wants to put up on a whim. Corvus cornix 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I don't think a category, such as Category:Hippie movement, is appropriate, and I do believe the list can be expanded with narrative, and I intend to do just that. —Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too support lists, but this one doesn't make sense to me. Section 4, art, philosophy, beliefs, would be best handled by links in a appropriate general articles. There might be a point in separate lists for people and events and cultural artifacts, but I do not see the advantage over categories.DGG 22:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles are fine. The entire list represents a bloated see also section from the main article that was split off. It's important however, to understand, that this list is not a loose connection of topics, but tightly, interwoven concepts that compse the core ethos of the hippie movement. Obviously, some editors have added stuff since its creation that should be removed, but that doesn't qualify for outright deletion. The entire AfD debates seem to be based on ignorance of the topic, rather than actual research, a very sad state for Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can anyone state any other situation where a similar lisit of very lossely related topics were allowed? I feel that given the very loose connections between most items (e.g. Yoga?, Ibiza? The Grateful dead? etc) that the page really has nothing holding it together. I wouldn't accept most of these entries in a category and don't feel that any counterculture is quite seperated enough from any other culture to warrant such a page. --Jimmi Hugh 00:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The topics aren't loosely associated or related; they are the core topics that compose the ethos of the hippie movement and full articles could be written on the relation of each topic to the hippie movement. I removed Ibiza, as some misguided editor evidently added that, but if you are questioning the placement of yoga and the Grateful Dead, I don't know where to begin with you. As I said previously, AfD seems to be a haven for ignorance. Deleting articles based on an unfamiliarity with the topic is shameful. —Viriditas | Talk 03:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Don't know where to start with me? Please elaborate; As a former hippy, long time Grateful dead fan and someone who has never practiced yoga i believe i have some amount of insight into the subject. Clearly these things relate to hippies, but as has been said throughout this AfD, loose association is not good enough for a list. These things would all have to be obvious Hippy Centered topics and not simply an association of sorts. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Grateful Dead has a "loose association" with the hippie movement? You're kidding, right? That was supposed to be funny, right? And FYI, yoga has a very strong association with the hippie movement. Try doing some actual research. There's about 609 references to the relationship between hippies and yoga on Google books alone, and 630 for the Dead and hippies. People can say whatever they want, but they are still wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 12:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is a pretty simple one to kill... the Grateful dead existed after the end of the original Hippie movement and have no association with modern Hippie Trends. They were once a small part of the movement but it was minimal and they now reach far out and beyond hippies, making them a loose association. Perhaps if they had died of at the end of the sixties it would not be loose. This is like calling Pink Floyd a Hippie band, it's futile and wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmi Hugh (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a very small sampling of evidence refuting your position: The Grateful Dead itself is strongly associated and deeply rooted in the original hippie movement of the 1960s. This is widely sourced in hippie entries in most encyclopedias. (Mitchell & Salsbury, 1999) In late 1965, the Dead became the "house band of the San Francisco LSD scene" supplying most of the music for the Acid Tests of Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters. (Turner, 2006). These "Acid Tests" represented the countercultural transition from the beat generation of the 1950s to the hippie movement of the 1960s, most notably with the advent of the Trips Festival which opened the door to teenagers and made the hippies visible to mainstream America. (Turner, 2006). "The Grateful Dead helped forge the chain that linked sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll during the counterculture's emergence in San Francisco." (Cavallo, 2003) As such, the Dead were at the vanguard of the burgeoning hippie movement and the start of the Haight-Ashbury era, playing almost every major event and festival of importance, leading to their description as one of the "key psychedelic rock bands" (Miles, 2005) and the "ultimate hippie band". (Dodd & Spaulding, 2000) As late as 1966, the Dead's performances were being described as "religious rituals" (see Timothy Miller's books and essays on the hippies as a new religious movement) and they were considered the loudest band in the Haight, making use of innovative sound and light shows that subsequently spread around the world (Perry, 2005) developing into what we now recognize as the modern rock concert. By 1968, the importance of the Grateful Dead as beacons of the hippie movement was widely acknowledged. In March of that year, the Dead were forced to move out of the Haight (and into Marin county) due to their popularity as hippie icons; tour buses were pulling up and taking photos of their house and harassing the band. (Miles, 2005) "Whereas other bands might have played to an audience, the Grateful Dead saw themselves playing for a community." (Turner, 2006). By 1971, roadie and manager Steve Parish described the majority of fans of the Dead as "hippies". (Parish, 2003) In 1992, Lee and Shlain wrote: "A few of the original psychedelic bands from San Francisco still tour, - most notably...the Grateful Dead. The Dead made a mystical pact with their fans, vowing to carry the psychedelic torch as long as they can play their music. They still attract the old sixties Deadheads, as well as younger people who feel they are connecting with that era through the music...they seek a nostalgic cultural experience, to individually experience what happened in the sixties." (Lee & Shlain, 1992) —Viriditas | Talk 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do in fact find this list indiscriminate. Based on that list, the hippie movement was a group of Buddhist Christian Taoist Vaishnavist-Hindu New Agers who rejected wealth and property except for their bicycles, cars, drugs, comic books, and hotels, and who rejected the idea of government ... well, mostly. In all seriousness, I do know that all these topics, to some extent or another, have some connection to the hippie movement. And, yes, to fully understand the movement and related events during that period, their "mutual relationship" is important. But the way to do that is to improve hippie (which needs the help) and related articles, to ensure that they are thorough and well-sourced, and link to other topics in order to demonstrate those relationships. This list, though, is just an uncited, unsourced collection of topics mentioned somewhere in the same context as hippies; in some cases, directly connecting them with the 1960s counterculture in this manner may constitute original research as well (as an example, making a direct connection between the predominately-American hippies and the New Zealand ohu would require citation; no such connection is mentioned in any of the salient articles). Serpent's Choice 06:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in my original response, at least half of the list is sourced directly to to Chelsea Cain's The Hippie Handbook (ISBN 0811843203), and the other half is sourced to references in the hippie article, some of which I have mentioned here. This list originally started as a massive "see also" in the hippie article itself; in order to improve that article, this list was split out into a separate article of its own. Despite outstanding problems, some of which you demonstrate (some editors have added OR to the article as you observe) the list can be salvaged by rewriting it with sourced material and expanding the relevant, historical narrative for each entry. The hippie article is already bloated, hovering around 59 kilobytes (I've removed most of the unsourced material to talk, material that has gone unreferenced for a long time) and it needs further splitting; it does not need more material. —Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list could be useful to someone researching the subject. I see nothing harmful in keeping it. I don't think the policy cited applies to this list. This list is not a directory. There is an advantage to having a topic like this arranged as a list instead of as a category. Some of these topics are just influences, and it would not make sense for these influences to be categorized as "hippie related". That would never survive CFD. Study guide lists (which is what this list is) make lousy categories. This list could be a "See also" section in the article about Hippies, but since it is so long, it makes sense to be a separate page. What is the harm of keeping it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleas read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix 21:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The interpretation does not mean that any useful article should be deleted, just that Useful alone is not enough, and SW suggested other reasons as well. --note that I !voted to delete, but we should use valid arguments.DGG 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other reason was that it was a study guide list. Wikipedia articles are not study guides, per WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Eyrian 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about this for another "NOT": Wikipedia is not an exercise in finding reasons to delete everything. I wish people would put more effort into things that are truly destructive to the project. This page is not. Deleting harmless pages like this just makes Wikipedia a less friendly, less enjoyable and more acrimonious place to hang out. Most "See also" lists are study guides. I don't see anyone working to delete the "See also" sections. Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:45, 26 June 2007 (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.