Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was keep Aside from suspected/possible sockpuppets and multi-voters, there are a few wanting to delete, but really there seems to be a consensus to keep overall. W.marsh 00:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshlight

edit

This article should be kept for numerious reasons. Not only is it only controversal because it is a sexual stimulator, but taking it down would be precident for complainers to ask for the deletion of other "obscene material." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims at increasing knowledge, and I managed to get to this page by reading and following links. The educational value is there, proven that it is more than just an advertisment, but more importantly, the free speech value is there as well. Furthermore, the fleshlight IS the best known product in that category, and deleting the article just takes away from wikipedia as a whole. The best arguments for keeping IMHO are that it is like the ipod vs. a mp3 player (as stated below) and also, if this is deleted, then precident will follow and people will demand other objects deleted as well (like the sybian, mentioned below) Just my two cents. This page should stay.


This is a product design, this is not a term , or a word or anything other than an advertise for a spesific product. Leaving this page alive is just like leaving a page for "Sony TV" rather than a page for the term TV or a page for Sony company.

furthermore, the "official site" for that product is nothing but a store an affiliate program for selling that specific product.

i don't see any educational value to that page, or any value whatsoever to that page other than advertising the maker of that product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigsexyguide (talk • contribs) .

Note to admin: Nominator has tried voting 3 times without signing the vote and there appears to be multiple sockpuppets being used.

  • Keep Sigh Anyways, this article just needs massive cleanup. Apparently, it's a popular product that has struck itself into mainstream conversation. Unique Google Hits test[1], it gets over a million regualar g-hits. Yanksox (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (From that web page, as viewed about a minute ago): Results 601 - 603 of about 2,050,000 for Fleshlight. And who knows how many of the 603 are affiliates or resellers? But that just provides a reason why Ghits are particularly inappropriate for products of any sort. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate keep. I might say it's a bit more like having iPod instead of Mp3 player; sure, there are probably other brands, but Fleshlight is by far the most notable and well-known, in my experience. Educational? It answers a very basic question: "What is this thing?" Advertisement? There might actually be your best point, though that may be more of a case for significant copyediting, than deletion, if the product/brand is notable. If the article is deleted, I'd suggest a redirect to a suitable main article; in the event there is no suitable article to redirect to, I'd say that should tell us something. Luna Santin 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CORP if we take "published works in all forms" to include on-line publication, and definitely well-known in certain sections of society. See Realdoll for an equivalent case. Tevildo 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a product is chosen i don't think it should be the "Fleshlight" everybody knows that the most popular sex toy ever is the "Jack Rabbit" and that's a fact. if any product should receive a seperated page it should be the "Jack rabbit".The only reason that the "Fleshlight" became popular so fast is because of their good SEO and marketing peaple tha among other activities also getting their product into directories like this one. 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigsexyguide (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep per above... does appear to be notable. No educational value? That would depend on... ahem.. kind of education one is looking for. ikh (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That product is not that notable. the market share of that product is reasonable, and it has no educational value, no revolutionary idea, and no outstanding changes to the concept of sex toys. It's just a product, one of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.161.107 (talk • contribs)
Comment So we should delete any and all food/clothing/electronic, etc. products/manufacturers because there are alot of them? I understand your point, however, there may be many but some stick out and become notable. And according to the presentable facts, it is. Yanksox (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this item should be removed. I'm also in this industry for years, and there are many products that should be here before that one. for example : Jack Rabbit, Pocket Rocket, iVibe products, Kama Sutra product, and more. I agree that this product is on Wikipedia only because of the good marketing strategy they got, by spreading their product to every blog, forum , free content site, purchasing banners and text ads, and basically spamming the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe43 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above is users first edit, there may be sockpuppetry afoot. Yanksox (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, yes, that's rather the point of advertising. Fleshlight have a good marketing strategy, which has lead to their product becoming well-known (which is what we, at Wikipedia, should base our decision on), and (presumably) to increased sales. Should we delete Ford Motor Company because Henry had a good marketing strategy, too? Tevildo 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No i wouldn't remove Ford, but I wouldn't let them add "Explorer" as an Wikipedia term. And that company didn't do to their field what Ford did to theirs. You can't just let every company list every product they have, in that case "Doc Johnson" will list 10,000 products that has a unique design, and "California exotics" will add another 15,000, there should be starndards and whatever standard you will make that specific product will not cut it . 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, yes, I agree with you there. We should only list products that are notable. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other contributors to this discussion, Fleshlight is a notable product. There are other brands of latex sex-doll, but Realdoll is notable. I don't see how this case differs from it. Tevildo 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison doesn't quite work, though -- Ford Motor Company has an article, but Interactive Life Forms does not appear to. In this case, the product is not only notable, but is in fact even more notable than the company which makes it. Luna Santin 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Keep There's no generic name for a device like the Fleshlight, it's unique. . As long as the informaiton presented doesn't advocate use of it because of how good it is, etc. and remains neutral, it's as good as any other entry for a branded device. I also agree that it's a slipperly slope once you get into individual products. I know of no generic equivalent. --Cfeyrer 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No I don't suggest to remove all products and companies. I suggest that you leave notable companies, in sex toys i would add Doc Johnson, Fun Factory (Because they are extremely uniqe), California Exotics(or Swedish Erotica) , but i wouldn't include ILF Inc. or whatever their name, since they are just another company in that market, and they only have one hit, and that due to aggressive marketing methods. And about the product, you can't compare it to iPod that became a fashion statement and a huge trend. And furthermore you can't add Fleshlight - a product just like you wouldn't add "Explorer" (Ford's SUV) as a term for a car, even though it's way more popular, notable and worthy for a page then that product.21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsexyguide (talk • contribs)
A-hem - "Jeep"? Tevildo 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please only vote once. You've already listed a vote to delete. Luna Santin 22:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Artificial vagina. Note that while "Fleshlight" is a brand name, the Fleshlight is a unique design type of artificial vagina incorporating suction and increased manipulability. (More than you want to know, I'm sure.) As stated above, there is no generic equivalent, since no other company makes this design. The content of the article needs cleanup whether it ends up standing on its own or is incorporated into "Artificial vagina". Iamcuriousblue 21:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there we go. If we do end up merging, definitely redirect. The Fleshlight brand would probably be worth a section on that article, but if consensus is that it doesn't deserve its own article, so be it. Luna Santin 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could (Personal View) be possible to improve this article with concerns to it's history and how it a breakthough design that has influence the 'sex toy' market to avoid the advertising feel it currently has. For example although the iPod is a individual product (part of a music player group,) it's release has a historical value in that it made a huge impact on both music players and futher increased music downloads, plus restored Apples furtunes. It is quite possible that the Fleshlight can be proven to of increased sex toy sales, and maybe improved other sex toy materials, but in this article that isnt clearly shown. Getting the article changed as a historical article and not a statistical would require a request for improvement and not deletion? I suspect that the fleshlight was more a mould of excising technology and ideas then a complete breakthough. Unless someone can improve this article, it would (Personal View) seem far better to simply merge it with the empty looking Artificial vagina and forward the Fleshlight article to it. It would still be possible to keep most of the information, and even include a link to a Fleshlight related site.

Percz 04:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The arguments in favour just do not convince me over the blatant advertising that the article really is. It is a notable product, but the article is way below standard. The device is emulated in the psycho-sexual counselling field for male orgasm training. But the article itself is insufficiently general - generic? - to be considered encyclopaedic. This is trade puffery, not notability. BTW to merge with Artifical vagina is interesting, but what about ...mouth, ...anus, and ...nondescript opening? Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see how this product is notable, artificial vagina are already in the market for many years, and they even looks just the same, the only difference is that they put it inside of a flashlight look like body. Notable progresses in that category (artificial vagina) are the making of CyberSkin and UR3 etc... , but putting it into a new tube is not that notable, or original.User:JonJon64 23:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is JonJon64's (contribs) first edit too; sockpuppetry? ikh (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, the flashlight look is not the only difference – a fleshlight also can be adjusted in such a way that it creates a partial vacuum. Hence, its an artificial vagina crossed with a penis pump. Iamcuriousblue 07:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably put the submission down to overzealousness rather than bad faith. The submitter was pulled up by me for spamming and after some discussion saw the problems that we have with advertising. He pointed the article out to me and I directed him to AfD, then completed the nomination when he made some errors with it. However, I don't feel enough conviction to voice my opinion one way or another in the debate here. The apparent sock-puppetry in the discussion is disturbing though. --GraemeL (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORP products criteria "The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." It has. [2], [3], and various others. Tom k&e 10:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Our standards for porn actors, actresses, and films are stricter than the standards for other actors, actresses, and films, because the products are so spammed across the net. Shouldn't the same restrictions apply for products? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But ... even if it does meet WP:CORP, it's a copy of the advertising brocure. I actually wouldn't assert {{db-copyvio}}, because advertising brocures are meant to be copied, but there's nothing encyclopedic there. The first sentence is about all that should remain. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet WP:CORP and everyone that has stated they believe the article should remain has agreed that this needs to be drastically rewritten. I recommend, looking at the nom's contribs and the highly possible sockpuppetry occuring both here and on the talk page. Yanksox (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced it does meet WP:CORP. Are those sources known in the field, and are the reviews contributed (possibly by the manufacturer) or by (quasi-)employees of the web site? As I was going to point out, epinions.com-like sites should be disregarded, even if the reviews are apparently non-trivial, because there's no way to determine whether the reviews really are submitted by someone other than the manufacturer. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORP, the sources need not be known in the field, only "non-trivial," which seems to leave a fair amount of wiggle room -- while, of course, a source known very well in a given field is more likely to be notable, that's hardly the only route to take. Sites like Nerve and AskMen are hardly trivial, and both have posted Fleshlight reviews ([4], [5]). Babeland.com lists the Fleshlight as one of its most popular items ([6]). There's a few other points remaining -- it's my belief that the "Fleshlight" brand is by far more notable than the company which makes it; how many people can remember "Fleshlight" off the top of their head, compared to the number who would even recognize "Interactive Life Forms, Inc."? Going back to the earlier Ford Explorer example, would now be a good time to point out that the Explorer does in fact have an article? Is it worthwhile to note that everyone who's entered this debate has apparently done so with prior knowledge of the product, indicating they've heard of it before? I think I can see where you're coming from, but at this point I have to disagree. Regards, Luna Santin 09:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'd heard of it because they'd also spammed the Open Directory Project, and I noticed that multiple retailers for the same product were listed. That's not evidence of WP:Notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I made quite a few other points, and I can't help but notice that WP:Notability is neither a guideline nor a policy. Not to say we can't explore that, I'm just not sure if it brings in anything new that WP:CORP wouldn't have already established. Regards, Luna Santin 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading arguments for delete and arguments for keeping this article, it's pretty obvious that my vote goes for delete, i saw number of arguments to delete this page, but i didn't see any argument to keep it other than "notable product"- argument that got shuttered by the arguments for deletion. --68.7.151.192 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let me second that question, what exactly is the argument of leaving that product online? I can see why people want to remove it, but I can't see why anyone would want to leave it. Wikipedia should refurbish it's guidelines to prevent companies to use it as a free advertisement like in this case.--Mikespike 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
users first edit. Yanksox (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with Philo, we should also remove Sybian, we should be objective, but sensitive to trends and for that reason i think that the same judgement should go for both sybian and fleshlight, they both should be deleted. However since I am working in that field for so long, let me state the difference between those two : the sybian has a unique mechanism! and unique functions, on the other hand the Fleshlight took vagina mold, not different from what every other manufacturer selling, and placed it in a flashlight body. So I will refresh a question that was asked here before, what is so notable and what is so special about this product that it should be include as a term in an encyclopedia ?, did it make a difference, did it invovled any kind of invension? if that product goes online, than you should be objective and every product designer should upload all of his / hers unique designs.And if I nerrow it to that field, just imagine what will happend to the integrity of that encyclopedia if DocJohnson will decide to upload tomorrow 5,000 products, each unique in the combination of looks, materials and fanctionality. --Bigsexyguide 08:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least the second or third time that you've put your opinion down, just put comment next time. Yanksox (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please stop logging multiple votes; it's not that you can't talk, or that we don't want you to, but since bolding a "delete" is similar to ticking your choice on a voter's ballot, it's better to only do it once, if that's alright with you. Also, you may wish to read WP:CORP, a guideline for notability as regards corporations and related topics, which includes questions of product notability here; there've been a few arguments using the guideline, above. In this case, the Fleshlight has been the subject of both non-trivial reviews, and has experienced some degree of trademark genericization. While I can appreciate your arguments, to be sure, my understanding is that notability is more important than uniqueness when it comes to articles (it's not like we'll run out of paper, after all) -- further, attempts by editors to judge the unique merits of a product are unfortunately pretty likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. Regards, Luna Santin 20:02, 23 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fleshlight&oldid=1084277200"