Ray Saintonge wrote:
The problem in this kind of situation arises when an editor sees no solution but to remove what he views to be offending material. The person whose material is being removed understandably sees that removal as an offensive act.
I think that's right. It's best, whenever possible, to think creatively about what sort of olive branch might be offered to the other person. In this particular case, the joyful compromise seems to have been to leave in "Louis' Lunch" which is undeniably of encyclopedia importance, and to remove the others.
Some people tend to view some of this local information as non-encyclopedic, but sometimes it is exactly what gives flavour to a place. Even those of us who condemn the excesses of capitalism can recognize that certain commercial enterprises play an important social and cultural role in their respective communities. If one were to extrapolate Rick's argument that the mention of the pizza restaurants constitutes advertising, then we should also delete the Disneyland article because it is effectively advertising for the theme park. Imagine the arguments if someone tried to delete that article.
Outside of one person who screamed at us in all caps and got booted from the mailing list for it, I'm not sure that there's really a lot of tension between "those who condemn the excesses of capitalism" and "those who praise the freedom of the marketplace" (or whatever we might call each side) _on this issue_.
I'd say that the real tension in this area might come from people with a slightly different 'stylistic vision' of what sort of information goes into an encyclopedia.
--Jimbo