On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)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You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG