Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (0th nomination)

Fleshlight was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect the article.

Page exists only to promote a brand-name sex toy. It provides no factual information beyond what's already at artificial vagina; it adds only POV speculation about empowering effects of sex toys. &#8592;Hob 18:34, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


 * I agree, no new info, and "original research" about the role of vibrators in the feminist movement. I suspect that there are sickos getting off on writing detailed articles on sex toys. Yuck. Wyllium 19:31, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence it's encyclopedic, it seems to just be an advertisement. But what we think of other people's hobbies is irrelevant here, by policy we are broadminded to a fault. Andrewa 19:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have no problem with anything, as long as it's notable. Wyllium 20:14, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
 * Abstain out of modesty! However, Bowflex, a trade name of a relatively generic product that's almost certain to survive vfd, gets about 380 thousand google hits; Fleshlight gets about 457 thousand. Samaritan 20:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm sure that the product is heavily marketed on the Internet and hits often, but I feel pretty sure that a lot of the hits are unrelated. At the same time, Solaflex and Bowflex are not underground, and they are singular in their field.  I'm not sure that one love canal toy is different from another, or at least the article doesn't say so.  What happened to the days when these products always made a bogus claim that they were medicinal?  At any rate, it seems not notable. Geogre 21:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Even good articles on brand-name sex toys probably arent encyclopedic, so Delete. Rlquall 21:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see that at all - David Gerard 22:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to artificial vagina - David Gerard 22:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Such a redirect seems reasonable and no one will be able to write an article about the brand-name device there in the future. [[User:Livajo|&#21147;&#20255;|&#9786;]] 23:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to artificial vagina. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  00:05, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * A redirect is more than reasonable under these circumstances. Personal feelings towards subject matter itself should be cast aside when voting, otherwise you have no place being here.  Our job is not to sanitize.  [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 00:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect (change of vote) to artificial vagina. Andrewa 01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dominant enough in its market to support several forums and websites dedicated exclusivly to it.Tom k&e 19:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.