Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aneros

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 keep. The nomination, and consequently the WP:PERNOM arguments, seem to be kind of ignorant as to what the device actually is, and are more than adequately addressed by the keep arguments. Mangojuice^talk 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aneros

its not advertising. It is a unique device.

Aneros (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This thing is not notable enough for Wikipedia. It's a vibrator like many other vibrators. Possible advertising. Aminullah 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually a vibrator (did you even read the article?) - it's a butt plug, and it's not like many others; it's designed specifically for prostate massage and to be used actively rather than passively. There are knock-offs, but this is the original of this design. In a lot of ways it's similar to Ben Wa balls, tho those are not from a single manufacturer. See also: Fleshlight. Not that the article should be saved, but at least give it a proper chance. I vote (if there's a vote) keep.--Justfred 02:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak delete changed to Keep,, see below / there does seem to be a product review from about.com's Cory Silverstein, and I consider that a usable source, but I do not think by itself it is sufficient. With an additional source i'd say it met the requirements. But even so I think it would be better merged into a generic article--ditto for Fleshlight. DGG 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually it's not like a butt-plug at all, it's very different. It doesn't vibrate at all. The Aneros started the whole category of male g-spot/prostate massagers that are out there today. If you're looking for more sources, the Aneros website has a listing. The about.com one isn't listed as one of them. And I'm not talking about porn magazines either either - New York Magazine, Details, Arena, Village Voice - mainstream publications. - Aneros Fan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.182.136 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Keep -- OK, the context helps. then rewrite the article as "Prostate massagers" so it isn't about just one company & includes the context. Could you start by adding the appropriate references, and we can move the article.DGG 04:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure why it needs to be made generic. Should we do the same for Slinky -> "Metal Spring Toys"? There are countless other examples of single-company products. There's already a prostate massage page, so this would basically mean folding this article into that one, which I think is inappropriate since it's only one example of a prostate massage tool/method. I think this is a decent article that stands on its own and doesn't need to be removed or integrated at the expense of content.--Justfred 03:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Mmoneypenny 13:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. We don't have an article for every model of vaccum cleaner or toaster, I don't see why we'd have one for individual models of vibrators, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not a vibrator, it's a class of its own, enough so that this is the generic term for this type of device. There are decently-sized articles for each of these classes of sex toy: Fleshlight, Clitoral_vibrator, Rabbit_vibrator, G-spot_vibrator, Love_egg, Anal_vibrator, Butterfly_vibrator, Anal_beads, Erotic_electrostimulation, Sybian. There isn't one for the eroscillator though there could be, as it's different enough (and recommended by Dr. Ruth!). If removed, it should redirect to Prostate_massage; there's already a picture of a similar device (knock-off) there.--Justfred 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have to abstain here. I mean, how do you determine notability for a sex toy? It's fairly notable within its own realms (and expensive, to boot), but sex toys aren't exactly a mainstream thing here in the USA - in fact, it's still kind of taboo to talk about it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since taboos don't apply here, I suppose we have to accept whatever sources apply, & a product review or two, wherever published, by anyone outside the company might be enough. I accept this as the best title, a/c/Justfred.DGG 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I acknowledge that. After all, we're not censored here. I'm just trying to figure out what would constitute WP:RS under the circumstances - probably the most mainstream publication that would take it would be porn mags and possibly Village Voice Media publications. I do, of course, reserve the right to vote keep. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - A review of the links on the Aneros page so far reveal that the vast majority of the links simply point to articles that merely give mention in passing to this toy. Of the two that I might - might - consider to be worthwhile are the mention by Sue Johansen in her top ten favorites list, and the science project write up that the Aneros web page links to. I haven't looked at Playgirl yet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 12 May 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.