Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicone Sex World

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silicone Sex World

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Silicone Sex World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NORG most of the sources deal with the publicity stunt of advertising for a doll tester and the other sources are mostly from the daily star which is not really a reliable source. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sockmaster vote struck by ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Unstruck ref below ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alex235D is a sockpuppet of Irsashahid, and has been blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: - Does the use of a sock also invalidate the original editor's !vote? I've seen it go both ways in AfD so I was wondering if there was an actual policy on it Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, "[removal/striking] should be done for all blocked sock puppets and sock masters in a discussion". ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear and Hydronium Hydroxide: Well, that's someone's opinion, but as far as I know the question isn't mentioned in any policy or guideline. I think using common sense is best, rather than looking for some "rule", or following what someone else thinks just because they have chosen to write it in some so-called "essay". In some cases it is clear that the editor in question is purely disruptive, and it is best to discount all his or her comments in a discussion. That tends to apply, for example, in the case of a persistent sockpuppeteer. My own feeling in this case, however, was that for the editor to make one comment in this discussion was perfectly reasonable, and the only thing wrong was making a second one while pretending to be someone else, so I didn't see any need to strike out the first comment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson and Hydronium Hydroxide: It won't answer the point here, but it seemed an interesting discussion so I've started a chat on Village Pump ideas on the issue Nosebagbear (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "seems" could you be more precise? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The company clearly passes the notability requirements in line with WP:CORP. A simple Google News Search turned up multiple results about the company from reliable independent news sources other than the daily star. Plus, The topic of Sex doll is generating interest all over the world. Hence, the page should be kept. Sillva1 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a little more clear about which sources you feel are in-dpeth coverage of the company itself and not its stunt to look for testers for the dolls? This is very clearly a publicity stunt that has drawn attention from the lower end of the news media. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at this. I don't believe RT is a lower end of the news media. Going further, you may also find that not all articles are about testers for these dolls. Sillva1 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very light rehash of the sun article here so no better. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor below pointed me to the same link earlier and I've provided reasoning why it fails WP:ORGIND (part of WP:CORP). HighKing++ 12:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More substantive discussion of the sources in question is necessary here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Company is one of a number of sex doll suppliers in the UK of equivalent (un)importance[6]. Coverage of the sex doll tester position is considered dependent (ref Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of dependent coverage), and thus does not, by itself, meet requirements for NCORP -- nor does momentary coverage of that stunt meet WP:SUSTAINED. Remaining coverage (including what's visible at GNews) is extremely limited, from tabloid sources, and tastes like PR-dependent material. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing independent requires a minimum of two references. It isn't that these references must be from reliable sources but they must also be "intellectually independent". As per WP:ORGIND, this specifically excludes references that base their article exclusively on company announcements and also further states Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references either in the article or that I can find online meet this criteria. The references either fail WP:SIGCOV as the article is more interested in the titillating aspect of the product and says nothing about the company (the subject of this article), or they fail WP:CORPDEPTH where the company is name-checked, or they fail WP:ORGIND where the article fails to provide any original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company. Notable too that the Keep !voters haven't produced any references despite request. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Not intellectually independent and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Once you spot the "Silicon Sex World told the Sun" references you realise it fails the requirement that independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to anything stated in the article relating to SSW that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with SSW? I can't. HighKing++ 17:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The company passes the notability requirements in line with WP:CORP. I agree that Google News Search turned up plenty of results about the company from independent news sources. Article needs to be refined to more appropriate wiki tone. rjwmccafrey (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind saying which sources you consider meet the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria and are not simply linked to the publicity stunt of asking for a tester? You say your search turned up plenty of results can you maybe give some? Dom from Paris (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other uses citing actual WP policy on coverage needed. Lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I strongly believe that this page is in line with WP:ENC. The topic of Sex dolls as propagated by this page is becoming increasingly relevant. It has been generating interest, both good and bad across the world. Hence, keeping the articles of the industry's most relevant firms is important. Secondly, it's also in line with the rest of the 5 pillars. One of the points there says "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" From every indication, this page is written in non-ad-like point of the view as seen in the "Controversy" point stated there. Finally, this page passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. This is clear from the avalance of news-related references seen. The company made an advert which generated intrest in the media but good and bad. Thats' enough to prove notability. News media wrote about this without anybody paying for that. See these: [8], [9], [10]. These are from well known news media. Aside from the advert news info, there are also other news-related references such as these: [11] and this [12]. So, I believe the page should be kept. --isacdaavid 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the date on the tester job stories? They are all around a few days of one of another and then nothing else? The story was probably fed to the papers as part of a publicity stunt to generate coverage. There is almost nothing else there from RS. This fails WP:ORGDEPTH. The phenomenon of sex dolls does not mean that this page has to exist the information can be found . It doesn't matter if the page is written from a NPOV or not if notability is met or not. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2018 (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/Silicone_Sex_World&oldid=855585646"