On 10/6/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: Pure adverts tend not to have 560 edits and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight]] came out as keep. On the other hand there is no indication that this is an office action so it should be fairly trivial to undelete. -- geni

On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:03, SPUI wrote: Danny, for example, may not be convinced by any company.

Hmm. #1 - they are apparently a registered company, with a business address and everything. #2 - they are selling a product (several really) to the public #3 - they apparently do a significant amount of advertising. One would think this makes them notable. I don't know that we have any precedent for removing an entire company's page just because they asked for "sole discretion over content"??? I would think it would be better perhaps to put a page up and sprotect it, perhaps? Protect it from drive-by vandalism while leaving a verifiable encyclopedic article? I mean, come on. We have an article for [[Lesbian Bukkake]], I would think the Fleshlight products/company are at least as notable as that. Parker On 10/6/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote:

On 10/7/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater(a)mac.com> wrote: G'day folks, A Google News Archive search shows some coverage of this product. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Fleshlight&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8… The claim by the company is an ambit claim completely contradictory to our principles. The product is marginally notable but I am not shedding too many tears about the temporary loss of the article under the circumstances. Regards Keith Old

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:48:54 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yeah but here we are working with WP:BDN (biographies of dead Nazis). Plus Godwin's Law just got invoked. Plus genuinely verifiable and well-sourced criticism can be inserted any time, the problem is *unsourced or badly sourced* criticism. We still have plenty of criticism of living individuals, where it's warranted. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: And salted so it can't be re-created as non-spam or even redirected to artificial vagina? What bullshit.

On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page? -Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]

On 10/7/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: IMO it sounds like the real problem here is that in this case we've concentrated the judgment of notability in one person. I've heard of a Fleshlight, and indeed in some subcultures they are very well known (probably one of the best specifically known adult toys at the moment). It wouldn't be Danny's fault for not knowing that, though, but if he's the one who gets to make that distinction in cases like this -- that is, it is not open for discussion, review, etc. -- then perhaps there's a problem. But whether or not this is notable or not, the fact that 1. its notability was decided by one person (or at least, that's the impression I'm getting from this thread) and 2. it seems spurred by an office complaint which seems absolutely counter to our core content editing principles (i.e. that companies can have sole control over their content because it might negatively affect them to have content they don't have control over) indicates to me, anyway, that there is and will be a real problem in the future here. I know that the tension between the idealistic wiki way and the overly-litigious American legal system is not a new one, but it will only get worse over time. My fear for the future is Wikipedia losing all of its iconoclastic edge and becoming yet another step in product deployment. I suppose at one level it is inevitable -- anything which becomes too popular in the United States has to become corporate and become it fast if it is going to survive -- though I find it a little sad. FF