Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CybOrgasMatrix


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CybOrgasMatrix
Insanely obvious astroturfing, this is a non-notable trademark, already covered in sex doll Defenestrate 08:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to the keep vote, I'm all for a merge with sex doll. I think that RealDoll should be merged with sex doll, as well. And I'd like to get rid of fleshlight. Generally, there are some ugly trademarks all around the sex toy article. If it is a single sort of something, and a trademark, to boot, I'm all for getting rid of it. Sex doll really covers both RealDoll and other makers AFAIK. I don't have time to do all this myself.

Also, while I should assume good faith, I am suspicious instead. Esoterik1 has a very short editing history that includes the creation of this article, and insertions of links to this article in other articles, but nothing else. This is a classic pattern for astroturfers.


 * Due to the nature of this topic, one should expect a higher than usual instance of unregistered users and/or sockpuppets. Note that in RealDoll's history page, more than half the edits were done anonymously, and the great majority of those were by people of good will. See the long response under Keep (below) for more on the tradition of anonymity in on-line forums that deal with sex dolls. Esoterik1 IS a nom de plume/pseudonym/sockpuppet, created SPECIFICALLY for this contribution. Any contributions I make in Wikipedia that touch on this topic, even peripherally, will be made by Esoterik1. Without revealing more about myself than I am comfortable sharing, as it happens, I am a published author. Clients and peers Google my name with some regularity. If the only acceptable editors for this topic are those who have registered with their real name and listed personally identifiable information on their User page, then a Google search on my name would include an article on sex dolls in Wikipedia. Speaking strictly for myself, I would rather voluntarily blank the article than suffer possible negative professional and/or personal consequences. Wikipedia would simply have to wait for a braver contributor than I, or a wiser one who doesn't freely admit to first-hand knowledge. And there's the catch. The Acid Test is: what do you know for sure? Incidentally, I don't feel the same way about other topics I write about. In other respects I enjoy attribution, kudos, and laurels. In this instance, the knowledge that my contribution made a difference will have to suffice. BTW, I like your handle. It's a cool word, rich with history, and one that has been in my active vocabulary for many years.--Esoterik1 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not sure what astroturfing is, but this article appears to be nothing more than an advertisement of an otherwise non-notable instance of sex doll. - ikkyu2 ( talk ) 09:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was politely asked to reconsider my vote in light of the article re-write. Without intending any offense towards any WP editors, my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines leads me to continue to recommend Delete for the reasons I already stated, with no prejudice towards the idea of merging this article content with sex doll.  I think the comments of Esoterik1 above with regard to a desire for anonymity WRT this topic are understandable and, therefore, the edit history of that user shouldn't prejudice evalution of the contributions solely on their own merits.  I still don't know what 'astroturfing' is.   - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as ad, nn. --Ter e nce Ong 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Delete and merge pertinent content to sex doll. There is still no reason why this object is worthy of its own article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What a novel... advert. Non-notable content, just another sex doll.  (aeropagitica)   16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as epic advert. -- Krash (Talk) 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Defenestrate, for re-evaluating the article after the re-write. I appreciate your "due diligence". This review will be closing soon, I would imagine. Is anyone else going to look at the edited version or give the 15-second video clip (linked below) a glance before that happens? You might feel differently about the new version of the article, and the video clip might satisfy any question of notability. If not, your criticism might lead to a needed improvement. I would regret it if the effort to write it (and especially the time it took to ask the company for a license for the photo) turned out to be a complete waste of time. One hopes to make a difference. --Esoterik1 06:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep On account of a major edit to conform with NPOV policy. Intensifiers were aggressively deleted and word count was reduced from 679 to 473. Give it a second look, please, and let me know if the changes made a difference, or if further editing is needed. As the author who seeded the core information, I feel responsible for at least bringing my contribution to the topic up to Wikipedia's high standards. The characterization of "Insanely obvious astroturfing," though a clever bon mot, is speculative, and, as it happens, inaccurate. But rather than take it personally, I was led to ask why the article might be so perceived. The resulting edit is an improvement on account of that input, however, and I am grateful. I started to cite references and quotes for each point, but it began to read more like a dissertation than an encyclopedic entry, and the increased length didn't seem justified by the topic. So I went the other way and slashed whole sentences, making it, I believe, more neutral, pithier, and more interesting on account of brevity.

I was guided initially by the prior existence of the Realdoll topic, which has been in existence since August, 2003. It has survived 2 AFD reviews (one in November 2003 and the latest earlier this month), and it is now a stable article, though currently slated for clean-up. I found 2 existing references to CybOrgasMatrix, one under Sex doll and the other under Pandora Peaks, but they weren't linked to anything internal or external.

I have no axe to grind, although I have become somewhat ego-involved with the article as my time spent contributing and discussing it here has grown. I would characterize myself as an enthusiast with a dose of expertise who should (by consensus) eschew the tendency to evangelize. I was moved to contribute because this is something that interests me, and I know some stuff about it that I felt would be interesting to others (and that's as much as I care to share of my personal life in this area). Because it was personally interesting, I know more about the topic and the industry now than I did when I began to write about it, since a useful contribution imposes an obligation to do a good deal of research.

Popularity:  In support of the argument for inclusion, here are the results of some search engine tests run mid-day today, Feb. 28, 2006, on the word "cyborgasmatrix" with adult filtering turned off-
 * Yahoo Test: 1280 hits, reduced to 1270 when clicking on the last page. However, Yahoo's advanced search form does not support the exclusion of the manufacturer's website, and that skews the results upward.
 * Google Test: Starting with the widest parameters first, there were 1430 hits for the word "cyborgasmatrix" with adult filtering off, and omitted results included. Repeating the search with the manufacturer's website excluded and omitted results excluded yielded 1060 sites listed, which reduced to 283 websites when clicking on the last page. There were 4 hits for the spelling "ciborgasmatrix" (3 with omitted results excluded), and 6 hits for "cybergasmatrix" (4 with omitted results excluded). Using the lowest values for these searches yields 290 websites.
 * Alexa Test: Ranks cyborgasmatrix.com at 406,325 over the last 3 months, with 20 linking sites.
 * The Doll Forum The CybOrgasMatrix section of the Doll Forum has 1218 posts on 128 different topics dating back to early 2002. Although this isn't a place one would think of going for a Google Test, it is worth considering when evaluating the popularity of a specialty item like this. It's membership is comprised of over 14,000 registered users who seem to be well fairly well-informed doll enthusiasts. It has a number of forums within, 9 dedicated to specific dolls, RealDoll and CybOrgasMatrix among them. It appears to be a good place to go to gauge public opinion on the product. A Wikipedia search yields 218 references to "Doll Forum." Due to the personal nature of the discussions, all but a few brave souls use handles rather than their names. This tradition seems to have followed RealDoll into Wikipedia; a brief glance at the history page accompanying the Realdoll article will show you that of the 66 edits to date, half of them (34 to be exact) are anonymous contributions, either by unregistered users, or by people who don't log in when making the edits.

According to several of the posts in the Doll Forum, the CybOrgasMatrix has never been advertised. They claim to have been around before RealDoll, but they spent the first 7 years working in development and research, outside the public eye. All of their customers have come to them by word of mouth, forums, or search engines. The company has attended only one trade show. In the course of obtaining the license to use the image of the doll used in this article, I learned that the BBC was interested in filming a documentary about CybOrgasMatrix, but it came to nothing when they were informed that due to work under development they would not be permitted inside the factory, even without cameras. The apparent lack of marketing or media relations might explain why more people aren't aware of the unique qualities that distinguish CybOrgasMatrix from anything else, but that is pure conjecture on my part.

Noteworthiness:  However, the argument for inclusion ought not to rely solely on popularity. It is noteworthy for the innovations mentioned in the article, namely: the degree of realism that is unmatched by anything yet invented in its category. Although that wording does not appear in the article, at first blush it is wildly POV. But I'll back it up below.

When I saw that there was a stable article on the Realdoll, I reasoned that if that information was fit for inclusion in Wikipedia, then an invention that represented a significant improvement over all Prior art would be relevant by the same standard. I was surprised that the topic did not yet exist. '''The case for relevance and basis for inclusion can be summarized as follows:


 * Sex doll, Realdoll, and Pandora Peaks have all withstood Wikipedia peer review and are now stable articles.
 * CybOrgasMatrix is an invention that represents the current state-of-the-art in terms of realism, with significant improvements over anything that has been invented in the past. As such, it is sufficiently noteworthy to have its own topic.'''

The basis for this assertion comes from Plato, who said that true knowledge is based on firsthand experience, and the best that can be said of anything else is that is a "correct opinion," however well-informed it might be (I am paraphrasing Benjamin Jowett's translation here). That was the seminal influence for my contribution (sorry; it was too tempting to resist). I would not have bothered to contribute on the basis of mere opinion based on something I read. I submit to you that anyone who has direct experience with the CybOrgasMatrix AND the Realdoll, and who isn't too shy to share that knowledge, will validate the 2 points that make the invention unique and distinct from all Prior art, namely the degree of realism achieved by lifecasting, and the tactile realism of the material used in its manufacture in simulating human flesh. Because it is not as well known (yet) as RealDoll, a lot of people may be unaware of this distinction. Although I am speaking freely in the context of this discussion, this is not a POV issue, because it can be verified by anyone motivated to do so. It would be most informative to hear from others with "true knowledge" who are willing to come out about this issue. True knowledge in this case can be as simple as the personal experience of having seen and felt the 2 side-by-side at a trade show, for instance, and not necessarily that someone happens to own both of them. I can certainly understand if someone is reluctant to share due to social taboos and stigmas. After all, the early prior art was pretty absurd, and no one wants to invite ridicule. Short of true knowledge, if someone is going to evaluate the merits of inclusion or deletion, I would think that at the very least they would want to take 15 seconds to verify this for themselves in order to make a more informed decision. I believe that could be accomplished simply by watching the first 15-second video clip on the official website (adult content, but very soft; interesting, but not offensive). It should play in Internet Explorer; I'm not sure about other browsers. I chose that clip as a representative example that immediately illustrates my point for the purposes of this discussion. However, linking to it in the article would be improper.

Dolls category propriety:  Regarding impropriety, I chose to delete CybOrgasMatrix from the Dolls category. I listed it there initially because I noticed that the RealDoll was also listed in that category. But upon further consideration of the fact that most people going through the Dolls category index are kids or parents looking for toys and action figures, clicking on a text link that brought them to the RealDoll or CybOrgasMatrix article would very likely be an unwelcome surprise, possibly a damaging one. As you will see if you follow the Wikilink above, RealDoll is still listed there. I will leave it for the community of Wikipedians to determine if this is correct, but as far as my contribution goes, a sex doll does not belong in the Dolls category.

Merging with Sex dolls topic:  It may well be the consensus that the CybOrgasMatrix topic should be merged into Sex doll. The argument has some merit, and there is an existing discussion topic in Talk:Realdoll that speaks to that issue. My first post on the Talk:CybOrgasMatrix discussion page posed the same question. If this turns out to be the consensus, had we not best apply the same standard to all sex dolls? In that case, shouldn't RealDoll be listed under Sex doll, as well. The advantage that RealDoll has that no other invention will ever have is that it was the first of a new generation. That's golden to an industrialist. Just ask Ping-pong, the makers of the first table tennis ball, or the people at the Crescent Tool Company, who invented the adjustable wrench. The company name is now synonymous with the product, the activity, or even the industry. Xerox and Figidair are 2 more examples. That should be enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia Companies, but does that, in and of itself, merit inclusion to Wikipedia? Esoterik1 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ignoring arguments about relative commercial positioning vis-a-vis RealDoll--that's not Wikipedia's issue. Merge all this stuff with Sex doll, and turn that into a balanced article about the sex doll phenomenon and not advertising about about how soft and lifelike this or that plastic is. (Wow, that video made me want to wash. Ick.)  &middot; rodii &middot;  16:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems like advertising copy and nn. Asides, vote is delete regardless of these comments: The article creator's lengthy rebutalls and user talk campaign might suggest to a less charitable person than me that there is some personal (pecuniary, commercial) interest. Assume good faith, yes, but sometimes you have to call things as you see them. And, is that thing ugly or what?! --kingboyk 21:19, 6 March 2006 (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.