Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Surf

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Socks/meats and SPAs aside, vanity press publications are not reliable sources, nor are nonexistant or one-line entries in magazines.  RasputinAXP  01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod Surf

edit

Nomination also includes near duplicate HOT ROD SURF.

Started as potential vanity page. Very little asserted notability and none established. Was prodded and supported by another editor but contested and removed. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hot Rod Surf has been featured numerous times in the internationally renound Hot Rod Magazine BURN OUT from Japan, local San Diego press including Gernade Magazine, and Revolt. Hot Rod Surf is known to almost every younger hot rodder and greaser as well as universally hated by older fake hot roddres who don't built, drive or own 1930's steel hot rods but wish they did. There is a 150 page book just on HOT ROD SURF coiming out this next month which is availble around the world. Wickpedia is for counter culture definitions people should know about if they want to—like what’s HOT ROD SURF! (Jmcrownpoint 10:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, CSD A7. Non-notable motorcycle club/shop/brand. wikipediatrix 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: go look at what Hot Rod Surf is and has done for the living kustom kulture and then try and label it 'non-notable'! If someone wants to know what HOT ROD SURF is they should be able to find out at Wikipedia. To deny HOT ROD SURF is to deny the reality of the hot rods and the lifestyle that are very real and contemporary.(Jmcrownpoint 2:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why is it that when some one dosen't know about something they claim it's not notable or not established. The fun of wikipedia to find out what things mean that you didn't know about. Clearly in this case it is Hot Rod Surf. Keep Hot Rod Surf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Despite the fact that this is really original research and theory, Wikipedia operates on a burden of positive proof system. Not everything deserves inclusion. And the burden of proof is on the authors of the pages to show that it should be included. This is also why we have Articles for Deletion instead of Articles for Inclusion. As well as a speedy deletion criteria that says, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." We don't just go around yelling yee-haw while we nominate stuff for deletion. We take the time to investigate, using many resources. And, searches all say that it's just not notable. If you think it's notable, prove it. If something is notable, there will be plenty of independent verifiable proof out there that can be cited and presented. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, put another way: Please cite sources to demonstrate that this shop satisfies the criteria for inclusion laid out in WP:CORP. (The 150 page book that is being published "next month" does not count, by the way.) Please cite the newspaper feature articles that you claim exist. Uncle G 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The majority of User:Jmcrownpoint's edits have been to add external links to this Hot Rod Surf site to other articles, not all Hot Rod related. Google search shows that many of the hits for "Hot Rod Surf" do not refer to this particular commercial enterprise (for example, it seems to be the name of a music style). -- Infrogmation 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Being a real counter-culture phenomenon Hot Rod Surf has not courted any mainstream news outlets. In many ways MWM believed that this was a waste of time of explaining instead of living. It’s time to bring the truth to light. The book HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine ISBN 0-9786756-0-6, and the second book by MWM about pinstriping is ISBN 0-9786756-1-4 who ever doubts the books should go and order them and can do hours of ‘verification’. The Blue Dream 1931 Ford roadster built by MWM and dripping with the HOT ROD SURF style is featured with a pin-up in “SDMUSIC MATTERS”reliable source ‘local music for local culture,’ June/July 2004 pages 22-24 (four full pages). Look at the rod in the magazine and on the official Hot Rod Surf website. HOT ROD SURF is featured in “Revolt In Style”reliable source magazine September 2002 (p.12), “Car Culture Deluxe”reliable source magazine, issue #9 year 2003, (page 71), one of the Hot Rod Surf parties is mentioned in “Revolt In Style,” November 2001. HOT ROD SURF was also featured in “Grenade Magazine”reliable source (since changed it’s name to Krown mag) Vol. 1 Issue 1, Spring 2003 with a ‘san diego Kustom Car Kulture’ full article (page4) featuring the Hot Rod Surf parties and the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and style. Hot Rod Surf has also been featured in BurnOut reliable sourcemagazine numerous times (check the news and events on www.hotrodsurf.com) there is a picture of the founder and publisher of Burnout. Contact legendary counter culture artists Marco Almera reliable source, or Nash’s BurnOut blog verify with them about HOT ROD SURF.(hotrodsurf 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Comment: GO CLICK ON YOUR OWN LINK to the books and you will find them! The books are are real as the original article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs)
    • I did, and they weren't there. I notice that Amazon now has the book listed. Investigating this, I find that the listing is solely because a seller has put up the book for sale second-hand. Investigating who the seller is, I find that xyr Amazon name is "hotrodsurf", a new seller as of the 20th of August 2006, the day after I wrote the above. Uncle G 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The books are on the first edition and printing, it takes some time for them to show up in the data bases. The first edition is officially released for distributors and reviews September 1st. To further ‘verify’ try and contact 'Harley' the lead singer of the band Deadbolt . Deadbolt has played numerous shop parties and Harley owns and drives a genuine Hot Rod Surf hot rod built by MWM. Next we will hear Deadbolt and Voodoobilly doesn’t exist despite their 8 plus full length original albums and world tours?! Harley has seen an advanced copy of the HOT ROD SURF 100% Genuine book, his band and hot rod are in it. (hotrodsurf 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — A self-published book still is not a reliable source. None of the other articles that are mentioned above appear to discuss the shop, but just its cars, so HRS is not the subject of those articles. JChap2007 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles discuss the shop, the style, and fully support the definition of HOT ROD SURF as described in the original article. (hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: An importantpart of the Hot Rod Surf phenomenon is the true DIY spirit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep: 'appear'! Go find the articles and contact the proper people and obtain the articles. All of the articles support the definition presented to Wikipedia. Go to BurnOut magazine or find a copy of the original Grenade magazine. Better talk to some one like Harley from Deadbolt or Marco Almera. Yes, the Hot Rod Surf hot rods and choppers are a very important part of Hot Rod Surf. The beauty of the HOT ROD SURF hot rods and choppers are that they are undeniably in physical REALITY and are driving all around the United Stated and the world. Unlike, text, articles, or comments which are just that text.(hotrodsurf 11:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • KeepThis is great all sorts of people are learning about what Hot Rod Surf really is! (hotrodsurf 1:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: hotrodsurf (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep: Non-notable?! In who's opinion? I and many others I've known have found the cars and motorcycles built by HOT ROD SURF and appearing for the last couple of years upon their web site, dvd's, and in various car culture magazines to be inspirational and an influence upon the lifestyle that I and others live. Non-notable? Hardly. By removing HOT ROD SURF, wikipedia displays it's arrogance, it's limited vision and thereby makes itself Non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Bham Greaser (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Keep:Hot Rod Surf has been featured in BurnOut Magazine on numerous occasions including issue #10, 2001 (pages 16-17), and issue #13, September 2002 (page 38). HOT ROD SURF has also been featured in the Japanese car culture magazine Cal Magazine in the 15th Anniversary edition, April 2002 #4 (page 87-88), as well as the German magazine Street Car & Bike issue Nov./Dec. 2005 pages (18-19). (Jmcrownpoint 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 72.130.148.120 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Note:To be more specific the #10 issue of BurnOut is also called the Makato Issue vol.3, no.4 and has HOT ROD SURF BBQ listed on the cover as a feature article. (Jmcrownpoint 2:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Hot Rod Surf is a lifestyle for me and my friends and it should be included in Wikipedia. It represents the contemporary beach and hot rod scene here in Southern CA. I’ve been to there parties and seen them featured in some mags and zines. (hotrodjohn 17:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Hotrodjohn (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..
  • KeepThis article is a good start for something that means alot to myself and means alot to buddies of mine, and there's alot of us. Hot Rodding, Kustoms and Surfing are things that have been passed down to guys and gals alike for many of years now. These are all things that we hold close to our hearts, tradition is something that you dont throw to the waste side, and articles like this one are showing that we are out there and we do care about more than just the fashion show and fashion cars side of things, and hot rod surf is now part of that tradition for alot of us from so cal and beyond. I Thank you for your time. Jimmy Von Surf
  • Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS. --Satori Son 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a result of multiple consistencies of habits, voting, and usernames in this AfD, a complaint has been filed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is clear that the 'User talk: JJJJust' has a pattern of selecting articles and marking then “unverifiable” and then when the verification comes 'User talk: JJJJustuses'uses more technical earmarkings like ‘sock puppets’ to try and disregard the verification of a Reality which he first complained and reported. Notice how 'User talk: JJJJust'never really talks about the articles he marks and files complaints against. Articles and text should be about the article and definition in question for Wikipedia not a technical game of ratting.(Jmcrownpoint11:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: More technicalities... Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Read it. And you're right, I do have a pattern of selecting articles and marking them unverified. It's called New Page Patrol. But, the thing is that, when I do that, and bring articles such as this one to Articles for deletion, a large majority of independent users with no connections to the articles whatsoever agree with me and concur with my findings. Oh, and the second and third sentences on this page, are about the article(s) of which I complained and reported. Once I've said it once, I really don't say it again, unless something like this happens. And, yes, I don't have much to say about the text of the articles. Mainly because the articles I forward here do not have problems with the text, they may be factual and nicely written, but, have other policy problems. I'm not really a front line guy, I'm a back room worker. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sources that discuss this seem reliable, but the article should be written with those in mind, not how it's currently written. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sources are you referring to, and how can you say they "seem reliable" without having read them? Or do you mean to say that you have actually read their self-published book or the articles from obscure magazines that allegedly mention them?? Also, their suggestion that personally asking the guy from Deadbolt for "verification" obviously fails WP:RS as well. wikipediatrix 13:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Typically speaking, we'd use published sources as sources in articles without much question. This seems entirely reasonable in this case, and I think we're letting the sock parade blind our ability to objectively look at this subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest that you take our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy a lot more seriously. A book that magically appears for sale on Amazon, by an Amazon seller named "hodrodsurf", the day after I mention that I couldn't find it listed, that is autobiographical according to the prior discussion (Please actually read the prior discussion.) and that hasn't been published yet (Please actually read the Barnes & Noble listing given above.) is nowhere near being a reliable source. It isn't even a source at all, because it hasn't been published yet. As for the magazines, I conclude that the answer that you didn't give to Wikipediatrix's question above is actually "No, I haven't actually read any of them.". I conclude this because I have made attempts to check these sources. The only magazine that I've been able to even find so far, Revolt In Style, doesn't have an accessible archive of back issues where I can check what was in the September 2002 edition. Uncle G 14:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I take it very seriously, actually. Whether the book "magically" appeared at Amazon during this discussion isn't really all that relevant. We're still talking about a published book that no one would ever question anywhere else. There are a number of sources we use in articles all over the place that I simply have not read, either. I'm not going to start removing books willy-nilly because I haven't read them, I'm going to assume good faith that the books are being sourced properly. Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that? Finally, I have a pile of books in the next room over that are technically "not published." While there are certainly some vanity issues we need to deal with on the editor side, his ability to have a prerelease version of something doesn't automatically eliminate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • With regard to the books and only the books, they both were written and published by the corporation in question. That makes them unusable as sources as they cannot be used to establish notability, which is what they were being used for and notability and verifiability are probably the largest sticking points here. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 16:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • From where you linked: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following." It meets "the following," so they're fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Two operative words that you are repeatedly overlooking: "published" and "notability". The notability criteria in WP:CORP specifically exclude published works that are not independent of the subject. This non-published book is an autobiography, as was explained by User:Hotrodsurf above. Please pay closer attention to the discussion. Uncle G 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm more bothered that WP:CORP is being used to trump WP:V in this case. If it comes down to a disconnect between a notability guideline and a verifability policy, I'm going with the latter. This isn't me not paying attention, it's making a value judgement on the sources and the article's worth. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The set of things that are notable is a subset of the things that are verifiable, so yes notability criteria are more restrictive than simple verifiability. (There is a patch of unremarkable grassland next to my house that is verifiable.) Your acceptance of an unpublished autobiography as a source is not a "value judgement". It is simply not applying any form of judgement at all, and not taking verifiability seriously. Uncle G 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • "We're still talking about a published book" — No, we are not. This was stated right at the top of this discussion, is stated in the Barnes & Noble listing, and was stated by me in the very text that you are replying to. Please take our verifiability policy more seriously, and please pay closer attention to the discussion.

              "I'm going to assume good faith" — This is not a question of assuming good faith. This is a question of an application of our verifiability policy that is so lax that it includes books that haven't been published.

              "Do we really want to discourage the use of published sources like that?" — Once again: This book has not been published. It is not a published source. Uncle G 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

              • Again, our disagreement on these issues is not me taking WP:V at a different level of seriousness - we disagree on the sourcing, and we disagree on the application. We're both longtime, reasonable people, and can disagree on this one. I hear what you're saying, I simply disagree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is not taking verifiability seriously, because the fundamental point of verifiability is that readers can check articles for themselves. Clearly, a book that has not been published isn't a way for readers to do that. It is a simple rejection of the entire basis of the policy to argue that such a book is a source. It is a complete mischaracterization to state that this is a disagreement on how verifiability is applied. What it is is not applying verifiability at all, in any form. Uncle G 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of nearly every "Keep" vote on this page is either a repeat, or an unestablished user; or, on the basis that the article is in such bad shape from a Wikipedia standpoint, it deserves another try at another time by an editor who understands NPOV and notability. -- MyWikiBiz 15:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn per WP:CORP. Self-published books don't count for notability. Moreover, the page content is not encyclopedic in style. Han-Kwang 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hot Rod Surf has proven they have valid sources outside of the books, Just two easy examples are Burnout Magazine and Krown magazine both can be found on their websites. The source are valid. These magazines are completely unrelated with each other or Hot Rod Surf. Hot Rod Surf is proven to be recognized by published media. Hot Rod Surf is a unique part of Hot Rod culture and should be include in wikipedia. Sources:
  • User:HunterIrrigation 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: HunterIrrigation (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic..[reply]
    • Actually, the purported articles cannot be found on their web sites. Krown magazine just has a gallery of its magazine covers on its web site, as does Burnout magazine. But at least you've told us where the magazines are to be found, now, which is better. Jalopnik has its article on its web site, but the amount of information in that article amounts to no more than 1 sentence: "Hot Rod Surf of San Diego builds old-skool hotrods.". This is Wikipedia, not the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We need more than "mostly harmless". Where are the sources for all of the other content of the article? Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Hello, I am new to Wikipedia but not to the Kustom Culture, Chopper and Hot Rod scene. I am here because the Kustom Culture scene is misrepresented and not understood by many people. It is a rising movement in American history and is recorded in many of today’s popular media. The modern era of Kustom Culture is changing rapidly with many independent press only covering accurate accounts. I am happy to see many other Kustom Culture stars on here such as Robert Williams, Juxtapoz, Jesse James, Von Dutch and so many more. This is an encyclopedia to stay onto of the current definitions. The outside sources of magazines, books and website clearly follow the WP:CORP definition for a company deserving inclusion. I would like to work on making the write up to standard and not deleting this company since this these type entits along with the above mentioned stars are what someone looking up hot rods, lowbrow art, rat rod, choppers or custom culture want to learn about. Give us critique on the description of Hot Rod Surf not trying to delete. Thanks to all the editors who care to contribute not delete this great site of important relevant information.(HunterIrrigation 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. It takes upwards of 3-4 weeks for Amazon to approve and list a book for sale on their website, and I say this as a self-published author. Silensor 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not accurate. Check out the link: [1]. It is not actually being sold by Amazon, but only listed by Amazon Marketplace as being for sale by hotrodsurf. This type of listing, and its Product Detail Page, can be completed immediately, and does not take the usual 3-4 weeks. Amazon.com says, "Once you submit the product information, Amazon will create the product page right away so that you can list your Marketplace copy on the newly created page." --Satori Son 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, having two books with and ISBN number is not an overnight activity and I find it extremely disturbing that an long time editor of Wiki would discount independent books or act as if books are created out of nowhere. The books are not the only sources you keep leaving out the other sources they have provided. Magazines and news sources provided they have clearly made an accurate case to be included according to the WP:CORP.(HunterIrrigation 15:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • Please do not misstate my position. I do not "discount" these two vanity press publications, I just do not believe they qualify as "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V, and thus are not a valid reason for a "keep" opinion from Silensor as he/she states above. --Satori Son 16:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello once again the other third party sources are being ignored the magazines Burnout, Krown, Reviewer, Revolt in Style, Street Car & Bike and Jalpinx. There are three links above where you can find the magazines and you can find past issues at selected counter culture newstands. I personaly have mulitple BurnOut mag with Hot Rod Surf included from back in 2001, 2003 and in the current issue 2006. I am a long time subscriber of BurnOut mag publsihed in Japan and distributed world wide heavly in Europe and America. These thrid party mags completely follow inline with the WP:CORP. This is a noticalble company that people into Hot Rod, Choppers and Kustom Culture want to know about. They are well documented in Hot Rod magazines. Why is it people who don’t follow the major current builders in the Hot Rod scene are trying to delete Hot Rod Surf after third party evidence has been delivered? (HunterIrrigation 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
        • They aren't being ignored, for the simple reason that you aren't actually citing them in the first place. We need more than just a laundry list of magazine names. How are editors and readers to find the articles that you claim exist from just that? See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Uncle G 10:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the page can be cleaned up and a lot of the POV terms removed I might be tempted to change my mind, but for now delete. Wildthing61476 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHi all! I have gone over the page and worked on the writing to make it in encyclopedic style. I have also got rid of all POV. As suggested by Wildthing61476 and Han-KwangI would like to have a side picture of one of the radical hot rods included on this page but don’t wait to take their photos without permission. This page has now proven to be ready for inclusion, cited sources and no POV. It should now be taken off the articles for deletion. HunterIrrigation 23:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems a bit crazy that there is all of this back and forth about Hot Rod Surf which should be a good, positive, fun and legitimate gateway article about the reality of the contemporary hot rod and kustom kulture scene. Each and every detractor and skeptic of the original posted article has not helped define, or add any original text to the expansion of the ‘hot rod’, ‘kustom kulture’, or ‘Hot Rod Surf’ articles? Let’s keep it positive with informative contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 66.74.223.154 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
    • Hello Satori Son, I have added all my own contributions to this page signed. I have no control over the post above or what any other fan of hot rod surf does. Please ask me any question or contribute to this post. It seems as a personal attack to be call a stock puppet after working so hard to contribute and listen to other responses. Feel free to contact me or post a vaild wikipedia agrument.HunterIrrigation 17:35, 25 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_Rod_Surf&oldid=1142650384"