Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topco

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topco

Advertisement page for a sex toy. Sandstein 10:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reason given.--MacRusgail 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - sex toys would be classed as notable, see Rampant Rabbit, especially if it's a popular brand. Will need to be rewritten to include encyclopedic and factual information. Rob Church ^Talk 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - We don't have an article on Rampant Rabbit? I'm surprised. Rob Church ^Talk 18:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sex toys are not notable, and must earn it like any other product. The best-selling brand of dildo might be notable, as might the first ben-wah balls used in space. In other words, a toy must assert its importance or significance. Denni☯ 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, mass-produced items are important and signficant. Kappa 01:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • • That's the whole problem here, Kappa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that everything is inherently important and significant. You have not, at least as far as I can tell by your votes, found a single thing you deem as unimportant or insignificant. It appears as if, in essence, you have no criteria for determining if the subject of an article is appropriate and acceptable or not, beyond whether or not it is verifiable. (I believe I saw a delete vote from you once on that basis.) Without such criteria in guiding us as to what is suitable for inclusion and what is not, Wikipedia just ends up becoming the world's largest junk drawer. Denni☯ 01:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The problem here is whether this particular information should be retained or lost, not what criteria I may use. Kappa 02:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not if they're completely interchangable with the larger subject. Craftsman #0 Philips screwdriver wouldn't merit an article. (No vote on this article in particular.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hee! It came up as a blue link (to Craftsman - nobody has made an article about that particular screwdriver). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It came up because of the hash mark: anything following it is treated as a section link, and if there's no section it defaults to the main page: Craftsman #2 Wrench and Craftsman #insane load of gibberish both go to the same place, so the "screwdriver example" doesn't mean what Kappa claims it means. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Doesn't merit an article" is not a reason for deletion, as your screwdriver example demonstrates. Kappa 11:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Did you click the link? There's no article about that particular screwdriver (and I'm sure Craftman has made dozens, if not hundreds, of different #0 screwdrivers, even) because it's an interchangable member of a homogenous group. In the case of such a homogenous group, you describe the group as a whole and let that description suffice for the whole
        "Doesn't merit an article" is one of the two main reasons something would and should be listed on AFD (the other reason is "Unverifiable"); empty articles, copyvio, gibberish/non-English, and such are dealt with elsewhere. "Doesn't merit an article" is why we don't have an article about my toenails, every streetlamp in the world, every single person that has ever been in a news story (be it feature news or obituary), etc. Now, different people may have very different standards of what merits an article, but to say that "This is not an encyclopedic subject" isn't a deletion criterion is just silly. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Why would we even mention your toenails or every single person who has been in a news story? Kappa 15:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
          • We wouldn't, because they are not subjects that merit an article in an encyclopedia. When someone votes "nn" or "non-notable" or "not encyclopedic" or "doesn't merit an article," they're saying it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia for the same reason (probably to a lesser degree) that we don't have an article on my toenails or the dear departed Uncle Mortimer. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
            • So everything mentioned has to merit an article? Kappa 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
              • BZZT. Strawman fallacy. Ten-yard penalty or a yellow card, depending on your country. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Is your formatting correct? Surely the "strawman fallacy" applies to the toenails... Kappa 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • It's not a strawman argument. I'm simply pointing out that everyone has a point at which they would vote "This subject is notr encyclopedic." For some, this standard is only in the case of patently ridiculous articles (e.g. my toenails, Uncle Morty), whereas for others this standard includes other things (e.g. people with unusual names, unremarkable sex toys, elementary schools). As this is a subjective stadard that varies from person to person, someone can vote "Doesn't merit an article" someone else can disagree, without either person being objectively wrong or voting or bad faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
              • To the contrary, many, many individual items and articles do not merit encyclopedic articles. As such, when you have an article written about an unencyclopedic subject (let's say Uncle Morty) and Uncle Morty's article comes up on AFD, people are perfectly right in saying "Uncle Morty doesn't merit an article" as their reason for deletion. "Doesn't merit an article" is a perfectly valid deletion criterion. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Uncle Morty is a ridiculous analogy, no-one would try to look him up in an encyclopedia. Kappa 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • Uncle Morty might. Uncle Morty's wife might. Uncle Morty's nieces and nephews probably would. So would all Uncle Morty's friends. Heck, more people might look up Uncle Marty than would look up some of the all-but-empty school articles piling up in the corners here. (But he still doesn't get an article. He's not a school.) Denni☯ 01:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this product is encyclopedic. Gamaliel 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I know sex toys, and this brand has never crossed my radar. Xoloz 05:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Like Gamaliel said. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.