On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:41:29 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I'm not understanding this point -- why then do we have articles on things such as [[Pipe organ]] or even people such as [[Donald Knuth]] -- both of these can be easily looked up online, and they take up some much more disk space than [[Fleshlight]]
I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus the fleshlight. Organists are notable, wankers are not.
How many celebrated skilled operators of [[Donald Knuth]] are there? This is kind of a weird criteria for establishing "notability", I don't think it's widely applicable.
I was addressing the specific question: if not fleshlight then why pipe organ. Pipe organs have been made for centuries by many different companies and individuals; the comparison is simply invalid.
How many non-trivial independent sources are there for fleshlight? Mainstream publications? Has it been reviewed in Loaded? Or is it just advertising plus a load of "hur hur, look at that, that's so smutty, hur hur"?
The inflation of this to the level of some product of transcendent global importance is patently absurd.
Personally, I have no idea whether Fleshlight is notable or not without doing further research I probably don't care to perform. But that's what talk page debates, AfD, RfC and such are for. We have ways of reaching community consensus on such things.
Sure. Debate it. But let's wait until we have all the facts before starting, rather than second-guessing Danny and crying that the sky is falling because one wank-o-matic got deleted.
Guy (JzG)