[WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

Silas Snider swsnider at gmail.com
Wed Oct 11 22:31:35 UTC 2006

On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
> <bryan.derksen at 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 You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.

I was responding to the implication that the standard for inclusion
was "...the project is not measurably
poorer as a result, it being trivially easy to find the product on the
internets should one be so inclined."

The project would not be measurably poorer without an article on Pipe
organs by this definition, since a ton of information is available
through a mere google search. Yes, the example was a bit hyperbolic,
but it is still valid, I believe.

> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
Editing Club of Wikipedia.

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list