On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
But "the comparison is simply invalid" was _my_ point. Why are you taking the reasons for pipe organs being important enough to include in an enclopedia and checking to see whether they also apply to a _sex toy_, of all things? It can't possibly apply in a meaningful way.
You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.
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"?
I don't know. My point is that this was something for interested editors to decide via the standard mechanisms (talk pages, AfD, etc), and that Danny was flat-out wrong to unilaterally deleted it like he did.
Or not, depending. There is, after all, no measurable damage to Wikipedia's reputation from *not* having an article over which two apparent spammers are fighting.
Considering that the article was kept by AfD, which I consider to be deletionism-leaning in general, it seems likely to me that there is more to this article than just advertising.
Afd is absolutely not deletionist when it comes to sexcruft. It's really hard to get rid of any sex-related article - look at all those Google hits! Must be notable. Hence we have abysmal articles like donkey punch on which sane editors essentially give up trying to apply any standard of quality whatsoever.
Why couldn't Danny have waited for all the facts before he deleted it?
I think he had them. Spammers edit warring over product placement.
As it turns out that this wasn't an Office action, second-guessing it is entirely appropriate. Danny isn't magic.
No, it's always best to wait for clarification. There is no deadline to meet.
Guy (JzG)