[WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

Wed Oct 11 09:30:59 UTC 2006

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:41:29 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

>>> I'm not understanding this point -- why then do we have articles on
>>> things such as [[Pipe organ]] or even people such as [[Donald Knuth]]
>>> -- both of these can be easily looked up online, and they take up some
>>> much more disk space than [[Fleshlight]]

>> I think the answer to this question is to check the availability of
>> recorded media celebrating skilled operators of the pipe organ versus
>> the fleshlight.  Organists are notable, wankers are not.

>How many celebrated skilled operators of [[Donald Knuth]] are there?
>This is kind of a weird criteria for establishing "notability", I don't
>think it's widely applicable.

I was addressing the specific question: if not fleshlight then why
pipe organ.  Pipe organs have been made for centuries by many
different companies and individuals; the comparison is simply invalid.

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"?

The inflation of this to the level of some product of transcendent
global importance is patently absurd. 

>Personally, I have no idea whether Fleshlight is notable or not without
>doing further research I probably don't care to perform. But that's what
>talk page debates, AfD, RfC and such are for. We have ways of reaching
>community consensus on such things.

Sure.  Debate it.  But let's wait until we have all the facts before
starting, rather than second-guessing Danny and crying that the sky is
falling because one wank-o-matic got deleted.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG