Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfly vibrator


 * 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 redirect to Clitoral vibrator.  Sandstein  07:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly vibrator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN, vintage 2013 merge debate closed (DEPROD reason). – Be..anyone &#x1F4A9;  02:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge if needed. Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice amount of coverage seen at . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect to . None of the coverage I could find (including with the Find sources AFD links) is reliable or significant enough to cite—and it's certainly not enough to establish notability. I was waiting on Cirt—thank you—before recommending as had previously said there was a lot of coverage of this topic, but as  can do nothing more than unhelpfully duplicate the Find sources AFD links and assert, per ipse dixit, that there's coverage out there, I have no doubt that this subject falls short of GNG. However, I agree with  that a redirect would be helpful: this article averages over 100 page views per day.  Rebb  ing  17:41 18:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Clitoral vibrator where is it briefly discussed. I found one academic paper Clinical and research concerns with vibratory stimulation: a review and pilot study of common stimulation devices where these devices are studied, which is enough for verifiability of basic facts, but not notability. This is a plausible search term, so I recommend a redirect to the more general article where is is mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to . I'm not finding enough coverage in secondary sources. It can always be WP:SPLIT back out if this changes. ~Kvng (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is already Butterfly strap-ons in Types, if "merge" boils down to "copy image + redirect" it's okay for me. The suggested merge target page desperately needs anything it can get, otherwise it's the next AfD candidate. also okay for you? –  Be..anyone &#x1F4A9;  07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep With the increasing recognition of the clitoris as a primary source of pleasure for women, and the accompanying shift towards the clitoris by sextoy manufacturers, it would be a disservice to our notability guidelines. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC) *Merge in to Clitoral vibrator .... I'd imagine there's many vibrators all of different styles etc .... not sure what makes this so special, Anyway merge is the best option .– Davey 2010 Talk 23:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't find it notable.-- Musa  Talk  11:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Clitoral vibrator § Types as above. This sex toy is simply one of many common styles - notability not sufficient for exclusive article. -- Callinus (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Didn't realize it was already mentioned there. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A consensus to merge or redirect has been established, although specifically which one is unclear. &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Clitoral vibrator. No sourced content in the article and it is already mentioned in the target article. AIR corn (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to seems to be a suitable outcome. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.