Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 7: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Craig Edward MacLean]]: closing (del. endorsed)
Line 30: Line 30:
*'''Overturn and delete.'''' Agreed. Eusebeus 15:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and delete.'''' Agreed. Eusebeus 15:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


====[[Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan)]]====


This article was deleted without any notice or warning or discussion. After it was deleted, there was no reason given. Even it was not a well written article, it has been retained for 2 years and nobody proposed a deletion. This is unfair

[[User:BN(O)|BN(O)]] 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Note''': That page was deleted as a broken redirect to [[Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China on Taiwan]], which is the page this DRv should probably be about. No opinion because I can't see the deleted content. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 10:40, 8 October 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])
*'''Note:''' the article was deleted by [[user:Centrx|Centrx]] with the comment "Not an encyclopedia article". I'll put a note on their talk page.

*The article was marked for cleanup in August 2005, but that is not a reason to delete. In my opinion parts of this have the potential to be an encyclopaedic article, probably as part of one about British Overseas nationality and/or relations between the PRC and ROC (Taiwan). Most of the article though isn't encyclopaedic but would seem to be useful to a site like [[Wikitravel]]. This needs discussion though so '''list on AfD'''. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion''' and add it to [[WP:NOT]] as an example of what "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual" means, especially the part about legal advice. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Deletion'''. Clearly falls outside the scope of our project. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


====[[Fleshlight]]====
====[[Fleshlight]]====

Revision as of 15:19, 12 October 2006

< October 6 October 8 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

7 October 2006

Seventh Party System

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Party System

This is not a criticism of the closer; although he would have been within his rights to observe that the nominating argument is a very detailed criticism, much better than the rants to keep. But I have even more information which would justify deletion, so I request that the decision be overturned to delete.

For some background on this, see Sixth Party System below. When V. O. Key published this periodization of American history in 1955, he divided it into five "Party Systems", with the latest beginning with the New Deal. There has been some publication on the idea since, some two dozen articles on the Fifth Party System (scholar.google). Some of these have been explanations of then current events as the end of the Fifth Party System, at dates ranging from 1960 to the present; some of them have been comments on the Fifth Party System still existing after so long. (The other four Systems all lasted about thirty years.) None of these appear to support the idea that he Sixth Party System has already come into existence, and has been replaced by a Seventh. Even if one did, it would be a fringe variation on a relatively minor idea. There are hundreds of articles on political realignment in the United States (scholar.google). Septentrionalis 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn and delete Fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ~ trialsanderrors 19:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, I was about to do this myself but Septentrionalis did an earlier and likely better job. This is not quite original research, but it is unquestionably undue weight. Some of the (very few) cites which allude to this concept are authored by people whose names are awfully close to the user names of the editors concerned, so perhaps a slight lack of objectivity has crept in. Guy 20:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
John Aldrich is a respectable scholar, but his postion isn't widely shared (his 1999 APQ paper gets 5 cites). In addition since his proposal of the seventh party system matches the period of the Republican revolution this is a redundant entry. A redirect might do, just in case someone uses this as a search term. ~ trialsanderrors 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried putting in a redirect (to Fifth Party System) and had it immediately taken out. Septentrionalis 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete, per nominator, and the two arguments for keeping which effectively say "no it doesn't meet WP:V, but it might, honest". Verifiability first, then article. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete per nom. 1ne 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn and delete.' Agreed. Eusebeus 15:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


Fleshlight

  • First AfD
  • Second AfD, speedy closed with an improper closing, although one person during the AfD properly noted that AfD isn't for deletion review.
  • Third AFD] closed without result or prejudice by brenneman due to this discussion not being finished with yet.
Old version of this DRV entry, sorted into vote categories.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleshlight (third nomination), where this has now been taken, as Danny's action was not an OFFICE action and thus a straightforward improper speedy. Phil Sandifer 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC) closed as premature. I've given full reasoning at my close, we may need an AfD, but let's finish here first.--Doc 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil reopened it. Can we not wheel war about which one has primacy? perhaps some consensus could be reached and discussion carried out in one place or the other. My view isn't going to change either way but still... ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wheel warring. Phil open an Afd, I closed it as premature. He reopened it (I think unwisely), I leave it for others to take it from here. But I think having two debates open is foolish - and could lead to contradictory results - then we'd be at war. I've opined on debate, I will not duplicate it in the other, but my view stands.--Doc 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danny deleted this, citing the new spam suggestions from Brad Patrick. He did not claim it was a WP:OFFICE decision, except that he mentioned that the office recieved complaints about the Fleshlight people not having editorial control. Regardless, given that consensus was to keep the article, we should be editing any possible spam/advert language out, not deleting articles that meet our specifications for notability just because the company wants exclusive input. Overturn and undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]



  • Overturn - If the article was overly commercial then it should be fixed, not deleted. Deletion is the fix of last resort. The company's claims that they want to control the page are bogus and should be ignored as always. Fleshlight is not just notable among the sex toys, it's notorious. Unless this is an official Office action (and we still don't have a confirmation either way... darn it), it should be restored and fixed. Georgewilliamherbert 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - It was deleted because it was overly commercial? So fix the bloody thing, it's notable enough. ShaunES 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe this to be a notable enough product. If advertising is a problem, a redirect to sex toy might be preferable. --NE2 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - One of the most notable sex toys. Obviously we shouldn't have articles on all of them, but we should have articles on the half-dozen or so most notable that are generally known to anyone familiar with the subject, and have been frequently mentioned in the news media (The Village Voice article is not the only one with a mention, just the only extremely recent mention; search Lexis-Nexis if you'd like more.). Village Voice says that it is "one of the best-known boy-centric toys"; I'm more inclined to believe their estimation that I am to believe some random guy on the internet who thinks it's "non-notable" without having researched the subject. However, I wouldn't be opposed to merging into an article on male-centric sex toys, since we don't have a huge amount of material on them in general so multiple articles probably aren't necessary at this time. --Delirium 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per badlydrawnjeff. bbx 06:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't often agree with badlydrawnjeff but he's right in this case. There wasn't anything like a consensus in the last AfD, which was closed abruptly. I see a number of news sources covering it, including the Village Voice, Wired, Toronto Eye Weekly, and SF Weekly. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn notability appears to be getting asserted. If this is an WP:OFFICE action, then Abstain but link a Jimbo/Danny statement in to the deletion/protection history. For those that inclided to improperly use DRV as AFD I'd say Redirect this to the generic article. — xaosflux Talk 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. If this is an Office action, then have the guts to say so. If it is not then it should not have been deleted, given the previous Afd consensus to keep it. Cynical 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on the grounds that it does not seem to have been through a proper AfD. Nevermind. Redirect it. Dalf | Talk 03:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I find it odd that an article for a single product is deleted without considering other such articles. Category:Sex toys lists at least three articles for other products. How about assessing notability using data of users' interests, instead of what the media chooses to cover? Using Google Trends [1] to compare amounts of searches done on Google, this international product ranks higher than some of the other Wikipedia covered products, and even higher than the mentioned Village Voice! Where is the problem in handling edit wars and vandalism with this article the way they are usually handled with all the other articles? --Para 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Luna Santin, others, and in light of not being an OFFICE action. To reiterate, this is DRV, and about the process, not the content of the page. You want to argue about content and notability, AFD is thataway. Turnstep 00:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn did not meet speedy deletion criteria - should have been taken to AfD. Johntex\talk 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. Danny (and others) make persuasive arguments for deletion but they do not make good arguments for speedy-deletion. Furthermore, the existence of a prior AFD with a "keep" decision should have made it obvious that this would not be an uncontroversial deletion. Rossami (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Overturn, optional relist -- if an article has survived AfD with a keep result, I can't imagine very many situations where it would be appropriate to speedy it. In my eyes, speedy is a tool to save us all time by avoiding a clogged up AfD page, not a tool to avoid or override community consensus. This isn't the forum to discuss whether this should be an article; DRV is here to discuss whether speedy deletion was appropriate, and given the prior AfD, I'm not so sure that it was. Luna Santin 06:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


how exactly does G11 apply to this case?Geni 07:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm somewhat conflicted about what to do with this article; google test seems to show notability (circa. 700,000) and Alexa Internet rank of around 7000 also raises notability stakes (granted this is not an article about fleshlight.com) - I'm tending towards overturn however Danny knows his stuff - neutral for now Glen 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted While the topic of sex toys is notable, this one product's notablility is an illusion. We have lots of products like this out there of no encyclopedic value. As Improv said, "We're not consumer reports".Voice-of-All 06:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to artificial vagina (and protect) is the best way to salt the earth. If this becomes a recognised generic term (as with "rampant rabbit" or "hoover") then the situation can be reviewed. -- RHaworth 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Fleshlight company and its agents demand absolute editorial control over the article lest its advertising value be diminished. The only way we can absolutely guarantee that the advertising value of their article is not subverted by the merciless editing of text is to delete the article. I see no problem here with giving them what they want in the only way we can. Guy 09:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard Danny's explanation that you're repeating here, and it's silly, borderline on outright bunk. What other articles do we give this sort of reaction to? I can think of a lot of people who'd love to have this done to their article, too, but we'd never do that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear that MediaWiki's markup parser sanitiser munger may have begun stripping out <sarcasm> tags. --88.109.144.82 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it.Ok, so all you "its notable" folks, its time to prove it. If its notable and encyclopedic, I'd like to see the proof. Everyone keeps saying it is, but I haven't seen independent sources (this excludes the company's own website and psuedo-forum) listed here (nor were there *any* in the article). I've looked, but I can find anything independent that tells me why this is more notable than any other sex toy. In fact, on most interenet sites selling sex toys, if the fleshlight is offered, its there with its competitors just like all the rest. Please then, list those sources that tell me why its notable here so people can see them. Otherwise, your claims are bunk. pschemp | talk 14:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they had been mentioned... [3] and [4] come up in the first page of Google searches. I'm really not interested in venturing much further in my quest for knowledge on this topic though... presumably there's more. --W.marsh 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At best that that shows that it needs a mention in Sex Toy, but doesn't justify a whole article. pschemp | talk 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we could find 5 articles (the number of widely read publications mentioned so far) about many or even most small towns, schools, highways and so on that we deem automatically notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. All this extra scrutiny because this is a sex toy is well, I understand it, but it is what it is. We've decided that Wikipedia is not censored, let's either stop acting like it is or change the rule. --W.marsh 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I'm not taking a position on whether the admin should have retained or deleted this article based on the legal concerns, nor on whether "not being bullied into deletion" is a higher principle than "not letting WP get used for promotion." But once we got past all the "there are media citations so it's notable" claims and the actual mentions got considered, the ones which are reliable sources proved to be surveys of the category and not features about this specific brand. This should, in my opinion, be kept deleted as not proven sufficiently notable. If it's brought back, it should be held to WP's normal standards and watched by various editors; neither the manufacturer nor competitors should get any preferential treatment. Barno 18:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. (Note. I "voted" delete on one or both of the AFDs.) Not only is it not notable enough to have its own article (although it probably deserves mention in Sex Toys), and there was no assertion of notability in the article, but there seems to be some question as to whether there's more than one of them. If the article were to be kept, it would have to be kept protected as both "Fleshlight" companies probably have enough resources to keep spamming the article with inappropriate links. (This is not normally an AFD/DR consideration, but Danny brought it up.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Deleted, granted that I'm the one that performed the action on Danny's behalf, but from my understanding of the situation, the owner of the name is resisting its inclusion into Wikipedia unless he is allowed to exercise complete editorial control over the contents of the article. As this is not acceptable, and the foundation would rather not have to deal with needless legal action, please leave the page as-is. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't appear to be Brad Patrick whay are you commenting on the foundations legal issues?Geni 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess: Kylu is telling you what she was told. That's the default assumption we should be making, when one editor tells another editor "Danny told me X" or "Brad told me Y" we should, in the absense of evidence to the contrary, assume good faith, and take their word for it. Kylu said she performed the action on Danny's behalf, after all. So are you disbelieveing her then? On what basis? If not, what did you mean, because that is how it reads to me. In general, I do not like people asking for proof (that Danny said something) from editors in good standing. ++Lar: t/c 07:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the foundation has chosen not to make legal issues public (and as far as I'm aware they have not in this case) it is best not to talk about them even if you happen to know about them for one reason or another. In any case the deletion was carried out by danny and not in his role as a founbdation employee.Geni 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Having this page is more trouble than it's worth. Can someone please point me to the policy that says that once there's consensus to keep an article, we don't have to worry about legal concerns? [ælfəks] 06:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no.Geni 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Page deleted at the request of Office. Please do not recreate." sounds a bit like OFFICE, but the usual machinations of OFFICE weren't used, so it seems ambiguous. If not OFFICE, then G11 seems the most likely to be relevant. That's why I'm asking, it makes a significant difference in my view of the situation. If OFFICE was used, I'm inclined to stick out of it; if it wasn't deleted in that capacity, or something similar, I really don't think a speedy is appropriate. That's more what I'm getting at, I guess. Luna Santin 08:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the deletion reasons given are "non encyclopedic cruft to promote a sex toy" and "once again".Geni 09:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Deleted. This isn't AFD. WP:OFFICE is WP:OFFICE. From Danny's email on WikiEN-l, I agree that this page was simply a spam target and battleground. Deleting this as quickly as possible and not redirecting it to Vagina was the best course of action for such a (...here comes the AFD opinion...) non-notable product. --ZsinjTalk 12:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But this wasn't WP:OFFICE, and this was out of process. DRV is exactly what this is for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We seem to be second-guessing Danny here, extending more consideration to the company than to our own people. [1]
That's good enough reasoning for me. Guy 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second guessing Danny is a good thing, especially if he's wrong and especially when he just acts as opposed to consulting with the editors who have worked on the article, or even taking a cursory look at what's in place for notability and deletion discussion. Nuking was incorrect, improper, and against the greater consensus of the community, which is ultimately what matters. We'd tell anyone else who wanted editorial control to take a long walk off a short cliff, I have no clue why this should be any different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. This is precisely the reason why people were concerned when WP:OFFICE was introduced. Not that the Foundation would delete libellous articles, but that it would get certain people (Danny in this case) the idea that their word is law (it's not, Danny != Jimbo) and to hell with what everyone else on Wikipedia thinks. The tone of that post makes this abundantly clear. Cynical 16:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jeff, second-guessing foundation staff is always and unequivocally wrong. Check the About page. We can ask for clarification or whatever, and then challenge the decision when we have full information, but second-guessing actions by the foundation office is almost by definition applying partial knowledge against more complete knowledge of the situation. Wikipedia is not an anarchy or a democracy, it is a project owned by the Wikimedia Foundation to which we choose to contribute. There being no deadline, I see absolutely no problem with waiting until we have a full reasoning (as above), at which time we can discuss the issue with full knowledge of the reasoning. Whatever the merits of this particular case, as a point of principle building drama in the absence of clarification is foolish, and I for one do not see this wank-o-matic spam as anything like important enough to go off half-cocked before we've even heard the foundation office's side of the story. Guy 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Danny wasn't working as an agent of the Foundation here. If he was, he's had ample time to say as such, and he has not. As far as this deletion was concerned, Danny was just another admin. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add further complication to the matter, here's something Jimmy Wales just posted to wikien-l:

I think that a significant amount of the confusion here has to do with

it being a little unclear whether this was intended as a WP:OFFICE act.
  It was done under Danny's normal account, with no reference to WP:OFFICE, so I think it is safe to assume this was Danny acting in his capacity and a long standing and widely respected editor exercising editorial judgment in a manner consistent with our longstanding policies of being bold.

It just so happened, as it turns out, that it was triggered by a call to the office.

So this was in no way an OFFICE action, apparently. All this talk of "second-guessing" Foundation staff appears to be off-base, he wasn't acting as a Foundation staffer when he deleted the article. Bryan 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  1. ^ Here is what he said today on WikiEN-l:

    Okay, this has gone far enough.


    It is remarkable that people have built all these theories on hypotheses as to what happened with Fleshlight, without actually knowing the facts. It is just ludicrous to think that I succumbed to pressure from a company. To begin with Mark Gallagher's ad hominem suggestions on that point, I have dealt with Walmart, Coca Cola, and GM (among other firms) on the phone. I have spoken with Congressmen and Senators. I have spoken to their lawyers. I have spoken to their PR people. I have spoken to their VPs in charge of advertising. I did not give in to their cajoling, their threats, or their attempts at bribes. To suggest that I did so with Fleshlight is simply ridiculous and does not merit any serious attention. Instead I invite you to spend a day in the office, or if that is too difficult, ask people who have been to the office and have heard me on the phone how I deal with those kinds of people.

    The fact is, we are dealing with a problem here. We have companies galore trying to spam us. OTRS is just a small indicator of this. We have adverting executives calling to see if what they can do to move their company to a higher position on a list, or how much it costs to get them on the front page. We are prime advertising. We will soon be the tenth largest website in the world, and "anyone can edit." It is not only top notch internet advertising, but it is free too. You see, these people dont see the difference between us and MySpace. They know that we will push up their Google rankings. They know that everyone will look them up on Google and find the Wikipedia article. And I repeat, it is free. For the Americans among you, it is like getting a free commercial slot in the last two minutes of the Superbowl. And I repeat, it is free. And for this prime slot, they want to make sure they look as good as they can.

    This is not hypothesis. We are dealing with it every day, from people who threaten to sue us for violating their First Amendment rights to post about their company to clueless people who think that if we put up a banner to their online poker site we will all make money. We get it from the big Fortune 500 companies and we get it from the local car rental shop, from the sister of a guy who is opening up a new real estate business in Durham North Carolina (I am not kidding) to reps of Coca Cola ("The article is biased"). We get it from Washington thinktanks led by former cabinet members to Flickr-like rip off sites (they offered us $35 for every photographer we send to them).

    As a site where advertising is anathema, we have to make a choice. Do we allow this? Personally, I am opposed to paid advertising on Wikipedia, but I am even more opposed to free advertising which we cannot monetize.

    As editors, we end up having to make choices. With our goals in sight, How do we continue being an encyclopedia, and not some advertising forum or MySpace? What is the difference between an article about Budweiser (which I believe we should have even though their beer is foul) and articles on every micro-brewery in the state of Wisconsin?

    Fleshlight is just an example of one such minor product. Yes, it was mentioned in the Village Voice. Big deal. My mother was mentioned in the Toronto Star in the 1970s, but that does not mean we need an article about her. Six other products were mentioned in the article (which was a survey of male sex toys, not a piece about Fleshlight per se), but that doesn't mean we have articles about them (see my earlier email for a survey of the article). One hit on Google News does not make something noteworthy, especially if it is not even an article about the topic per se, but rather just a few lines in an overview article (if you actually read the article online before citing it, you will see what I mean).

    For all those expressing indignation, I invite you to think about what should be included in an encyclopedia, even one the size of Wikipedia. Once you define that, consider what the definition excludes.

    Which brings us back to Fleshlight. It was the subject of a subtle edit war between the company that manufactures it, and a similar company which wanted to have an external link on the Fleshlight page. Fleshlight wrote "We are happy to let others view our product, but would like to limit editing privileges. This product is seen as taboo to many, so they would just assume destroy our displayed page. Is there anyway I could be placed as moderator for that single page, just Fleshlight, so changes can still be made when necessary and not having the company product slandered." By slandered they mean, showing a rival company. Their rival wrote, "I am quite upset. While I understand that everyone can edit pages as they want, I find it quite outrageous that I add and edit information about the Fleshlight at _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight) I am an affiliate of Fleshlight and got the word about rules at WIKI that you can't link via affiliate links, but provide USEFUL links using your own domains regarding an WIKI entry." He wanted to add "my updates regarding facts, like unavailable colors of the Fleshlight." That was the slander. Add to this mix a guy who runs a Fleshlight fansite, which is essentially a porn site, who wanted sole control over links as well (i.e., link to his site only).

    Considering all this, I asked if Fleshlight really needs an article of its own. I consulted with people too. The overwhelming response was that this is spam and should be nuked. At first I thought it could redirect, but then I asked myself the following question--do we really want redirects from every possible product out there to generic articles? Ask yourself the same question. Better yet, go into a dollar store, look at the display of products and ask if we want redirects for all the rip-off brands in Wikipedia.

    And I nuked.

    Once again, I hope that this whole incident helps to clarify what the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are. At least let it launch that discussion. But to do that, we have to avoid all the rhetoric and be willing to make real decisions based on the underlying principles behind what Wikipedia is all about.

    Danny


Daddy V

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy V Notability could be established based on media coverage, video appearances and on his clothing line.

Considering all this I would like to ask for an undeletion. Lajbi Holla @ me 13:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_October_7&oldid=81022326"