Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (third nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closing in favor of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (fourth nomination) as the result of the deletion review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshlight

This article was speedied by Danny, and mistakenly taken to be a WP:OFFICE action. It was not, rendering this deletion out of process, and something that should be taken to the community. As such, I am listing it here. I have no vote on the matter. Phil Sandifer 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, previous deletion debates are here:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fleshlight (redirect)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (keep)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (2nd nomination) (AfD was cut short so hard to say what result it had)
And, to add further complication to this mess, Wikipedia:Deletion review#Fleshlight is ongoing.

Strong keep, notable product, plenty of media mentions, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I mentioned on the last AfD and the DRV, this seems to have had the attention of the mainstream press (or semi-mainstream like Village Voice many times over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per badlydrawnjeff. This is a notable product, with a citation to back it up: "One of the best-known boy-centric toys is the Fleshlight..." If the article were not protected, I would add said citation. --NE2 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable unique product. Article has a use. When I first heard about product on web I came to Wikipedia to find out more. Funky Monkey (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Consider if all notable products were listed here. "cheer", "Xerox", "Crockpot", "Tupperware" and 380,000 other common household items.Atom 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cheer (detergent), Xerox 914, Crockpot, Tupperware
- Comment: iPod, iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod shuffle - not only are these name brands for what is really just an an MP3 player, we are content to let each version have its very own article! Sure, the iPod may be more famous than the fleshlight, but one article to cover all the version of the fleshlight is appropriate. Johntex\^talk 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close, until the DRV has been closed. Naconkantari 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The DRV, as with all DRVs, is an absurd joke that should be ignored. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Traditionally speaking, if an AfD crops up during a DRV, the DRV is closed down, not the AfD. The DRV shouldn't have been superceded here, but what's done is done, unfortunately, there's already too much in the way of response here to avoid it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to Artificial vagina. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge per Xaosflux. There are insufficient independent sources to guarantee much of anything, and the reader is better served by a merge.--Jimbo Wales 00:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So if the reader comes here looking for information on the Fleshlight, how is s/he better served with a generic article on artificial vaginas? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Cleanup I'm not a fan of this product at all. That said, its popularity merits a well-sourced article. Danny Lilithborne 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Xaosflux and Jimbo Wales. Ral315 (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep famous brand of a type of sexual aid. Johntex\^talk 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, if there is a need for mention of this device in Wikipedia I'd expect to see this in artificial vagina but there is no obvious need to preserve (for merging) this advertising copy. It should also be noted that this is also on DRV where it is overwhelmingly keep deleted --Gmaxwell 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Overwhelmingly? Might want to recheck the DRV tally. Turnstep 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge in the interest of furthering the goal of high quality articles as opposed to many articles about individual silly sex toys. Hopefully this can set a precedent. Cowman109^Talk 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree philosophically with the idea of merge, I wonder how long this has sat in the backlog for "somebody to get around to." Though now that this has Jimbo's attention, I hope this gets dealt with for good. (Can you lock a redirect page?) And I wonder how much trouble you can get into for vandalizing, (blanking) a DRV discussion... --Roninbk _{t c e #} 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI:Yes a #REDIRECT page can be protected and if merged would recomend this being a protected redirect until signifigant notabiltiy is established on it's (non-redirected) talk page (if ever). — xaosflux ^Talk 05:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a well advertised, well known, well BRANDED sex toy. The article needs serious work. Based on a quick survey of what is on Wikipedia, I think this article is more important than the thousands of articles on homebrew sonic the hedgehog fan-fic video games thus should stay and should be fixed. --TrollHistorian 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very popular, very public version of an Artificial vagina, which deserves it's own proper article. ShaunES 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Merge to artificial vagina, although a delete would be acceptable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to artificial vagina, I'd suggest making Fleshlight a protected redirect to discourage spam ~Kylu (u|t) 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect per argument made by Danny as shown in this diff. This is not a notable product, one mention in one or two lines of the Voice does not confer notability. We've wasted too much time on this already, should have been speedied before the first AfD. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Artificial vagina. There's more than one you know. pschemp | talk 04:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Notable, but not necessarily notable enough to merit an article separate from artificial vagina. -Sean Curtin 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NE2, appears to be a notable product within its field. Johntex makes convincing argument as well. Yamaguchi先生 05:14, 10 October 2006
Keep, notable and popular product seen on ads all over the internet. bbx 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google New archives shows 19 hits for Fleshlight see [1]. Notable product within its field. Second preference is to merge. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to artificial vagina, thats a good place for it and it keeps it from comming back (I hope). Dalf | Talk 06:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we not have a wheel war about whether this should be next run through AfD or DRV? ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree. Reversals make this a forest fire. Convention is that when something on DRV appears on AfD, the AfD is the one that survives. Phil Sandifer 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WTF? So you stop the forest fire by reverting me, back to your version? How is that helpful? ATM we have this debate (which incidently I don't care about too much) happening over two fora. We could quite possibly get two differing results and thus a real forest fire. Opening this during a DRV is NOT AT ALL helpful. You should either have waited for ther DRV to finish - or closed it and see if anyone objected. There is now a high probability that someone will question the legitimacy of this AfD (as I do) and it itself will be sent to DrV. I'm no stickler for process - but let's keep discussions in one place. I'll not feed this fire by reverting you (as you did me), but I invite someone (else) to close one of these discussions immediately.--Doc 21:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly Strong Super-powerful Keep --Wclark 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per badlydrawnjeff. Turnstep 18:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Turnstep. --Jre 18:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but can we speedy delete the puritans? This thing is notable, it passes every test we have. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are none of these "many media mentions" cited in the article? —Centrx→talk • 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.