Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (fourth nomination)


 * 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 Keep --Durin 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fleshlight
This article was speedy deleted by User:Danny despite a keep consensus in past AfDs. A DRV consensus overturned this deletion after receiving clarification from Jimbo and Danny that the deletion was not a WP:OFFICE or Foundation issue. Danny does make an argument for deletion in the DRV which many commenters might wish to consult. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC) For reference, previous deletion debates are here:
 * Comment I disagree with Xoloz's interpretation of past AfDs. There was one "no consensus", and all the others were closed early  and/or opened during a deletion review. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ..., for reference, the previous nominations were:
 * Votes for deletion/Fleshlight (redirect)
 * Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (2nd nomination) (AfD was cut short so hard to say what result it had)
 * And, to add further complication to this mess, Deletion review (overturn speedy deletion)
 * Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (third nomination) (AfD was was opened, closed, reopened, reclosed, and rereopened during the Deletion review; closed as confusing after this renomination which was in process as the DR interpretation was that the 3rd AfD was out of order)
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a notable product, with a citation to back it up: "One of the best-known boy-centric toys is the Fleshlight..." Since the article has just been unprotected, I will add said citation and clean up some of the promotional text. --NE2 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into Artificial vagina. The article is a notorious target for spam and quickly fills up with marketingspeak promotional text. Wikipedia is not a shopping catalog. The use of artificial vaginas in human sex behavior is encyclopedic, but this product is just one product in that class and the article does not point to any reliable sources to bear on its notability. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 15:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and monitor super-closely for possible spamming. That this product meets our basic guidelines isn't really in question, the problem is possible/probable spamming, and that can be dealt with by editing (after all, we don't delete George W. Bush because it's a vandal target). --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My first instinct was overwhelmingly to let it stay, but after reading the above DRV and taking other things into consideration, i'm now saying Delete. If the "Rabbit" vibrator doesn't get an article, then neither does this. As referenced above Artificial vagina covers the type of device and (correct me if i'm wrong) i thought that Fleshlight was just a brand name of such, in a Hoover/Vacuum Cleaner-type way. OBM | blah blah blah 16:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge current version only (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleshlight&oldid=81028025), to Artificial vagina. The probable disruption by the manufacturer and destributor, as described by Danny,  suggest that the redirect should be protected, and the target article closely monitored.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is disruption a rationale for removal? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Disruption could be a reason for permanent protection, which seems contrary to other policies. Deletion might be safer.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a pointless debate. The consensus of the DRV was that Afd should debate this. Afd is about deciding on whether an article falls within the guidelines of notability etc. As I understand it, if there are legal or other issues, this forum is not the place for discussing or deciding them. --Dweller 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. AfD is about determining if an article satifying all the critera for an acceptable article could be written &mdash; notability is only one of the criteria.  If it is determined that an acceptable article could not be created, even if partially for legal reasons, a delete is in order.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems a notable example of a generic. --Dweller 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested by Arthur Rubin; I'm not convinced that this is individually notable enough. Sandstein 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Smerge to Artificial vagina. — xaosflux  Talk  16:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "smerge"? --NE2 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats a Merge/Delete vote as far as I can tell. I personally am leaning towards Keep however as this is a notable sex product thats been on shows like Howard Stern, and in Playboy/Penthouse/Hustler magazines.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 18:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, updated the glossary on this one as well. I propose that this is PARTIALLY merged, only keeping posrtions of it, then made in to a redirect. —  xaosflux  Talk  23:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since the product is highly notable and monitor closely. Being a target for spam is the tradeoff one has to accept as part of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Silensor 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silensor. Meets all of Wikipedia's requirements. Turnstep 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this product is known to almost all pornsurfers due to their extensive advertising. bbx 19:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per badlydrawnjeff, Silensor, Alkivar, etc. --Myles Long 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "this product is known to almost all pornsurfers due to their extensive advertising" and a dearth of reliable sources to back it up. ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Delete, Delete and keep deleting it until it stays deleted. Atom 23:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's traditional to give a reason. Turnstep 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when have we started being traditional? After voting three other times for delete, it seems like a waste of time to say it again.  Notable is not the only criteria.  If we list every notable commercial product, and each one pursues commercializing as much as this article did before it was deleted, and tries to block other competing products, as the editor of this one did, we would be spammed to death.  Look how much time we've wasted on it already.  Atom 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - in an ideal world, things wouldn't keep getting renominated over and over for deletion, so you would only have to present a delete argument once. But at least you could have said "delete per my arguments at the last AfD." Believe me, those of us voting keep are as frustrated by the multiple nominations as the delete voters are at failing to have the article deleted. Turnstep 00:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AfD results. This is obviously a useful product that has been mentioned in the press and should be covered here. I also have no doubt that our readers expect wikipedia to be the authoritative refrence work on the subject. There is also no need for an AfD renom just because some admin trampled policy and existing consensus in an unbridled rush to censor wikipedia and remove valuable sex toy info. --JJay 23:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fleshlight&oldid=81105744) at the moment could easily be added as a paragraph in Artificial vagina. What was here before was a good example of WP:VSCA, and was had nothing worthy of being said anywhere in Wikipedia.  Perhaps an article could be written, but the place to do it is in Artificial vagina, and then split it out from there after it is written.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete. The only time it's ever been mentioned in the press ever is one article in the Village Voice about multiple sex toys. Let's not let people advertise their sex toys on Wikipedia, thanks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is that statement based on? There are numerous press references for this product, easily found through google. --JJay 16:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge (who cares where) if this product is notable enough. What exists isn't big enough for an article and never will. SchmuckyTheCat 06:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, keep, keep per Alkivar. Grindingteeth 07:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect to artificial vagina. There is very, very little which can be said about the fleshlight which is not either original research or advertising copy. Guy 10:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the article suggested by JzG. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evidence has been provided of notability, and the normal practise where a page is the target of vandalism/spam is to protect or semi-protect it, not delete it. Cynical 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I originally wondered if this product (so widely advertised on certain websites) was worth an individual article.  I'm still in two minds about that but that doesn't mean it should necessarily be deleted.  If it's a relatively trivial example of a masturbation aid it can be merged to an article about sex toys intended for solo use.  The Village Voice article suggests to me that merging is probably unnecessary; it seems to have attained an individual identity.  --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per MiB, et al... Nn. Eusebeus 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable unique product. Article has a use. When I first heard about product on web I came to Wikipedia to find out more.  Funky Monkey    (talk)   14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Notable enough that I've heard of it through press reports, although I can't give you a cite from memory. However, I wouldn't object to a merge to artificial vagina, of which it is probably the best-known example. Oh, and regarding the vibrator, a Google News search for "rabbit vibrator" gives 14 hits, has featured in Sex and the City, and it now has a feature film, Rabbit Fever named after it: definitely a notable phenomenon. -- 80.168.224.225 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per a man in black. Not opposed to a merge, but definitely not a keep. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as having its own article is unnecessary when compared to simply having a short description in artificial vagina could suffice. The only other material that could be present in this Fleshlight article would be specifics on buying a fleshlight, which in itself seems to just be a big advertisement. Cowman109 Talk 19:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - sybian was never deleted and merged into vibrators --Philo 23:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable and unique product. the article could use some expanding.  the only substantial reason for deleting is the possible spamming of that article, and every article is susceptible to that.  Vivelequebeclibre 23:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:V, WP:WEB, and is very notable. If you think it is an advertisement I suggest you change it. It is a well advertised, well known, well BRANDED sex toy, it probably has some of the greatest brand recognition of any sex toy out there. The article needs serious work but based on a quick survey of what is on Wikipedia, I think this article is more important than the thousands of articles on homebrew sonic the hedgehog fan-fic video games thus should stay and should be fixed. --TrollHistorian 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is something established by commentary in multiple non-trivial reliable sources. All we have here is an article in the Village Voice, which, as the article talk page notes, is running prominent advertisements for the products and is probably a paid affiliate. We have standards for notability, and a flood of product fans to this AFD will not change them. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the deletion policy to mandate the deletion of an article on the basis of "non-notability". Perhaps there should be, but there isn't. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability (companies and corporations), Notability (web). I don't think I said anything about the deletion policy. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, the relevance of your comment that "We have standards for notability" is moot. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But you did claim that there are no potential sources for this article beyond the Village Voice. That is patently untrue. There are numerous potential references. If you are interested, they are very easy to find starting with google. Also please provide proof for your assertion that the Village Voice is Fleshlight's "paid affiliate". --JJay 20:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is there only one article, and it's a survey of numerous products, if there are purportedly so many external references? —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see a claim that there are no potential sources, just that there are no actual sources. (And, even if the column in the Village Voice is not a "paid ad", it's about babeland, and their claim that the Fleshlight is notable.  Notability is not inherited.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments made earlier at Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (third nomination), which still hold true. Yamaguchi先生 20:14, 14 October 2006 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The best comment on the earlier nomination is Centrx's:
 * Why are none of these "many media mentions" cited in the article?
 * Where are these mentions? Really, where? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 20:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is massively reviewed and appears in many blogs. It is a lot of crap to sift through on google that is for sure. Eye Weekly wrote about, a Nerve columnist  wrote about it. If you google "montreal mirror fleshlight" there are many links including an actual survey from readers (although not really analyzed) [ http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/021303/sexsurvey2003.html]. Various bloggers wrote about it  . These links don't really add much information other than people used and reviewed it. --TrollHistorian 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Except sometimes in discussions of Internet phenomena, blogs are irrelevant.  And I don't think that Montreal Mirror article counts, either.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't the Montreal Mirror article count it is an attempt at a survey of the readers and what they use. It is also mentioned 2 other times in the column . Frankly it isn't hard to find links that aren't blogs: Seattle Post Intellegencer, Wired , NOW Toronto , Anchorage Press , Eros NY , some report on sex in video games . I found 1 reference to a CNN story on it and 1 to a MSNBC news story on it (weird news) but the pages were down. --TrollHistorian 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Montreal Mirror article doesn't count, IMO, because the reference purports to come from a "survey", and we don't know what the "survey" contained. For all we know, the "survey" may have mentioned the Fleshlight, in which case all we could say is that one columnist, in an unedited (or edited only for libel) article, thought it was notable the first time.  However, User:JJay has done a better job of adding references.  (Why he didn't do this before is a still a good question.)  If they pan out, and are "articles" rather than "columns", it becomes a (marginal) Keep.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the survey questionaire . It didn't mention the fleshlight at all. You can make the same claims about the columnist as you can with just about any research out there. This is pretty bad research but it is evidence. --TrollHistorian 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alkivar, Silensor etc. Widely, internationally known product. Prolog 06:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog advertisement for specific products. Merge any relevant generic information into other secual activity articles.  --Tbeatty 08:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I really cannot see that this product is one with any fame, importance or cultural significance. It is a curiosity, and has perhaps picked up some interest in independent media, but nothing which is of any long term interest. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge if you must) basically if we keep this, then why not any other product. These things come and go, and really what can we say that someone won't find on the advertiser's website -Doc 15:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Negative and critical views? Duh. 75.35.193.2 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for preference, there being no evident genuinely independent non-promotional coverage of the product. Failing that, as a poor second, redirect to artificial vagina. Guy 22:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain that comment in reference to the existing sources in the article, which include a number of books from major publishers. Are you really implying that Random House or Chronicle Books are not independent or exist to promote this product? --JJay 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Pocket pussy is the slang name that redirects to Artificial vagina...this article is just advertising.--MONGO 04:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. notable sex-toy. I'v also seen the product in various articles on AskMen. --Madchester 05:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJay, Philo, TrollHistorian. --71.80.31.11 14:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments and flush G11 down the drain, what a horrible policy. RFerreira 00:43, 17 October 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.