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&am... 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.
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?
On 10/6/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
That's quite a jump in the logic there, isn't it?
Pure adverts tend not to have 560 edits and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight]] came out as keep. On the other hand there is no indication that this is an office action so it should be fairly trivial to undelete.
Stephen Streater 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&am... 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?
No.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:03, SPUI wrote:
Stephen Streater 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?
No.
Danny, for example, may not be convinced by any company.
Stephen Streater wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:03, SPUI wrote:
Stephen Streater 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?
No.
Danny, for example, may not be convinced by any company.
Yeah, it's called exaggeration. But, given that Fleshlight is a "notable" product, he's too easy to convince.
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
On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:14, Parker Peters wrote:
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.
My main company, set up in 1998, has number over 3500000. This gives an idea of how many companies had been set up in the UK since the relevant Act was passed.
There are millions of non-notable companies in the world.
On 10/7/06, Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:14, Parker Peters wrote:
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.
My main company, set up in 1998, has number over 3500000. This gives an idea of how many companies had been set up in the UK since the relevant Act was passed.
There are millions of non-notable companies in the world.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
A Google News Archive search shows some coverage of this product.
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Fleshlight&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&...
The claim by the company is an ambit claim completely contradictory to our principles. The product is marginally notable but I am not shedding too many tears about the temporary loss of the article under the circumstances.
Regards
Keith Old
On 06/10/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google+Search&am... 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.
"Adolf Hitler is the Chancellor of Germany [1]. He is noted for his work on the moral fibre of German society [2] and stimulating the economy [3], notably through the Autobahn programme [4]. Some have criticised aspects of his work [citation needed]."
- entry written after Hitler's complaint and a rigid WP:OFFICE application of WP:BLP.
- d.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:48:54 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- entry written after Hitler's complaint and a rigid WP:OFFICE
application of WP:BLP.
Yeah but here we are working with WP:BDN (biographies of dead Nazis). Plus Godwin's Law just got invoked. Plus genuinely verifiable and well-sourced criticism can be inserted any time, the problem is *unsourced or badly sourced* criticism. We still have plenty of criticism of living individuals, where it's warranted.
Guy (JzG)
Danny, can you provide us more details on this action? Fleshlight is too notorious to not be notable, and the description of this incident so far seems confusing.
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:47:22 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com 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)
And the problem is?...
Guy (JzG)
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&am... 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.
Wrong. Any company can contact Danny saying "hello, you keep changing our spam, can you let us have total control of the page?" and have it deleted as spam under CSD G11.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
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&am... 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.
Wrong. Any company can contact Danny saying "hello, you keep changing our spam, can you let us have total control of the page?" and have it deleted as spam under CSD G11.
And salted so it can't be re-created as non-spam or even redirected to artificial vagina? What bullshit.
On 10/6/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
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&am... 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.
Wrong. Any company can contact Danny saying "hello, you keep changing our spam, can you let us have total control of the page?" and have it deleted as spam under CSD G11.
I hate to "me too" this, but... G11 doesn't trump legitimate notability.
Or if it does, shouldn't, and something is grossly wrong with policy.
As is, you have just handed a mechanism to any company to get their WP entries nuked.
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&am... 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 seems kind of silly. I'd actually looked up this article before myself, because the "fleshlight" is notable enough that it's entered slang use, at least in some subcultures, and I had no idea what the word was referring to. It's also gotten quite a bit of press, and a quick google news search turns up a claim in the _Village Voice_ (a mainstream news magazine) that it's "one of the best-known boy-centric toys".
I would have to say Danny erred in this case with his ignorant statement that it is a "non-notable product".
-Mark
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:07:27 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org 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
That seems kind of silly.
Not at all. The only way they can ensure that the "advertising value" of "their" article is not diluted is to delete it, what with this being a wiki and covered by GFDL. Danny did the only thing which could possibly achieve their stated aim within policy.
Guy (JzG)
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:07:27 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org 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
That seems kind of silly.
Not at all. The only way they can ensure that the "advertising value" of "their" article is not diluted is to delete it, what with this being a wiki and covered by GFDL. Danny did the only thing which could possibly achieve their stated aim within policy.
Guy (JzG)
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
-Rich [[W:en:User:Rholton]]
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com 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
Not at all. The only way they can ensure that the "advertising value" of "their" article is not diluted is to delete it, what with this being a wiki and covered by GFDL. Danny did the only thing which could possibly achieve their stated aim within policy.
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them that. The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being ruined is by not carrying it.
I was going to include a comment along the lines of us making a better fist of it than them, but thought better of it...
Guy (JzG)
On 10/7/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I would have to say Danny erred in this case with his ignorant statement that it is a "non-notable product".
IMO it sounds like the real problem here is that in this case we've concentrated the judgment of notability in one person. I've heard of a Fleshlight, and indeed in some subcultures they are very well known (probably one of the best specifically known adult toys at the moment). It wouldn't be Danny's fault for not knowing that, though, but if he's the one who gets to make that distinction in cases like this -- that is, it is not open for discussion, review, etc. -- then perhaps there's a problem.
But whether or not this is notable or not, the fact that 1. its notability was decided by one person (or at least, that's the impression I'm getting from this thread) and 2. it seems spurred by an office complaint which seems absolutely counter to our core content editing principles (i.e. that companies can have sole control over their content because it might negatively affect them to have content they don't have control over) indicates to me, anyway, that there is and will be a real problem in the future here.
I know that the tension between the idealistic wiki way and the overly-litigious American legal system is not a new one, but it will only get worse over time. My fear for the future is Wikipedia losing all of its iconoclastic edge and becoming yet another step in product deployment. I suppose at one level it is inevitable -- anything which becomes too popular in the United States has to become corporate and become it fast if it is going to survive -- though I find it a little sad.
FF