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@mac.com wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 19:47, SPUI wrote:
Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google +Search&sa=N&tab=wn seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they are "non-notable", and get salted.
That's quite a jump in the logic there, isn't it?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l