Talk:Fur massage

[Untitled]
The external link to MinkgLove.com is relevant and should not be removed. It should not be considered as spam. According to the links guideline, an external link is acceptable, if these conditions are met:

What to link There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. * Is it accessible to the reader? -> yes * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? -> yes * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? -> yes

Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. -> novmnmnm 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. -> no 3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. -> Although MinkgLove.com is a commercial website, the link points to a informational part of the site and not directly to the commercial part. 4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. -> Although MinkgLove.com is a commercial website, the link points to a informational part of the site and not directly to the commercial part. 5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. -> no 6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. -> no 7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. -> no 8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. -> no 9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. -> no 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. -> no 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. -> no 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. -> no 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. -> no

In conclusion, the link is relevant to the article, corresponds with Wikipedia's external link guideline and is not spam as it lands on a informational section of the external site. Thanks.

Please do not add it again
Although you content #3, it's pretty obvious that the intention is to promote this site (which is commercial and is not a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Cecile
 * This makes it pretty obvious that you are here to promote your site. If you add the link again, you will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Facts please?
I have a serious problem with the fact that this article makes claims based on completely nonscientific schools of thought, such as holistic medicine and Tantra, and appears to have been written for the purposes of advertising a specific site. Although the link to this site has been removed, the fact remains that the article seems to take its information from advertisements, rather than from any sort of independent or even remotely scientific studies. I think a major rewrite might be in order.

Edit: After rereading the criteria for speedy deletion, it seems pretty clear that this article is spam. I'm nominating this for speedy deletion. Ketsuekigata 15:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
My reason nominating this article for speedy deletion was not that it's unsourced, it's that it's spam. Although the link to minkglove.com, the commercial site that the article was originally written to advertise for, was removed, the fact remains that the article was written by a promoter for that site, is somewhat lacking in encyclopedic merit or notability, and exists solely to promote a service. The criteria for speedy deletion specifically list "pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic," and I think that pretty clearly applies to this article. Ketsuekigata 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to concur with Ketsuekigata's comments. Not only is the advertisers site purely for selling gloves for the exact purposes this article covers, they are highly expensive gloves which would have to create a pretty specialised market to sell. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Doing a google search for "Fur Massage" (in quotes to eliminate false results) gives less than 111,000 articles worldwide (at the time of adding this comment). Add the word "wikipedia" to the search and most of these sites mention proudly that their products have a mention on Wikipedia in some way or another. There's no doubt in my mind this article purely exists to promote the product being sold, and as such should be deleted. Whisperwolf 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-Definition
This article does not explain what fur massage is or what the difference is between a fur massage and traditional/erotic massage is. Please elaborate. 128.97.123.26 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it confuses me as a reader: It claims to be a part of "partner massage" which is clearly a private, sexual matter, "with the intent of arousal" then states the importance of a professional boundaries when clearly this is not a professional massage environment. It would much better be kept explicitly under the category of erotic massage. 67.104.104.2 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)