I have some serious problems with all of this. The article was created in 2004, and its first version was obviously not advertising. It had three AfDs deciding to keep it. I recognize that the company's demand of editorial control absolutely cannot be met. But I am gravely concerned that the Foundation Office's response to such a demand is to delete the page outright and salt the earth. Whether we keep an article or not should not be based on whether the article's subject has been a problem for us. The community has repeatedly indicated a desire to keep [[Fleshlight]], and the claim that the page was created for promotional purposes is demonstrably untrue. For the Office to unilaterally delete it marks an unfortunate and dangerous turning point in the relationship between the Office and the community. Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer(a)english.ufl.edu You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here. On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

G'day Dan, <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Fleshlight> Since 1 October 2006, evidently. I don't know what the Fleshlight people told Danny, but it must have been bloody good to make him take such a rash action. It sounds like they weren't saying "we don't want an article", but rather "we demand to have a say in what you publish, and if we can't have that then ... uhh ... we're non-notable ... yeah, that's it ...". An alternate reading is they called up and said, "How come people are able to edit our article?" and Danny said, "YOUR article?" and pulled the plug, cackling maniacally all the while. Either way, 'twas a goof. This is not the first time Danny has done the Wrong Thing, nor the first time he's used his this-is-my-treat-me-as-a-normal-editor account for OFFICE actions. Now, fair enough, nobody can be right all the time, but a man with as much power on Wikipedia as Danny wields should a) have a better strike rate, and b) bloody-well admit it when he gets things Wrong. At the very least, I think we'd all appreciate being informed of the reasons why the redirect suggested by Keepsleeping and SPUI is inappropriate, because ISTM that there's no reason not to redirect the article, except that Danny hath decreed it shall be deleted, and doesn't want to encourage alternative solutions if they go against what he's already decided. (Gosh, it's much easier to criticise now that I'm no longer contributing regularly.) -- Mark Gallagher "I've got to start listening to those quiet, nagging doubts." -- Calvin & Hobbes