On 10/11/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:37:10 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)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You would need to ask Silas why he originally made that comparison.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(a)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
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------