Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Spotlight

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. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Spotlight

Indie Spotlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • No Delete Why is this just now being brought up for deletion but was fine before?? The article was created following wiki guidlines and cites plenty of refrences. The article was abused by a person User:ShockerHelp who had nothing to do with the company Shocker Toys. I the article creator have nothing to do with the company either. The line has been shown in finished format and can be cited as well as being in Diamond Previews catalog shipping in December. The article was skewed by User:ShockerHelp to seem like a company person has made all the changes and furthermore this article is only being put up for deletion because of bias opinions. Also this is not a non-notable company they have produced product for Adult Swim's Dethklok show as well as a Mini Maxx vinyl figure for MTV and a product called Shockinis. I think these people throwing this article to the wind need do a bit more research before entering their bias opinions.--JMST (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has existed for all of five days. So "fine before" does not mean much. The core reason for the timing of this deletion debate is the post on the Admin noticeboard. That post brought a lot more eyes to the article. More eyes can swing both ways though. In this case, it brought the article to the attention of someone who, upon looking at the article, did not consider it to be an article that was within the policies of the project. Someone who almost certainly was not aware of the article before the ANI post. I know that *I* had never heard of the company before that post.
As for countering the deletion arguments, the core argument here is WP:CRYSTAL. That is what you need to argue against. You need to show why this is not an article about what may happen in the future, but rather about what is, in the present. And for now, I just don't see it. Even without the negative edits, with nothing released, it's all announcements and predictions, which is the key reason for it being a WP:CRYSTAL violation. There's also WP:SPAM, which gets at the reasons for the article's presence on the project. If it's here for the purpose of promoting the line, "raising awareness", etc., then it's moving over into advertising/spam territory. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, the product isn't even on sale yet! JMST, it's come up for deletion because it was brought to the attention of people who realised that it was about a product that didn't exist. Maybe it will be notable someday by Wikipedia standards (read WP:Notability, it isn't now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But some of it was sold at San Diego Comic Con 2008 so should that just be the only product left on the page instead of deleting it?? If those are the rules that it has to be a notable product there is over 100 refrences stating that the Maxx from Indie Spotlight was sold at Comic Con 2008 so that should permit the page to at least list that and maybe mention the coming of Indie Spotlight Series1 as a whole in Dec 2008. Am I correct in assuming this and how do we fix article to say this and comply with Wiki rules?--JMST (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Indie Spotlight action figures have been sold to date. The Maxx sold at SDCC 2008 was not part of this proposed line. Therefor, by the standard of WP:CRYSTAL, I'm afraid that this article should be deleted. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice in this picture link http://www.shockertoys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2797 The box clearly states Indie Spotlight.--JMST (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference link to the picture in the article leads to nowhere. If you notice on the Shocker Toys product page (http://www.shockertoys.com/store.php), The SDCC Maxx figure is not part of the proposed Indie Spotlight lineup. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are all from highly specialized websites and do not appear to be particularly reliable... The tone from the ones I read appeared to be along the lines of people hoping this actually happens, as opposed to neutral journalists reporting on something that is actually likely to happen. IMO it would be great if this does happen, but right now this is just one company talking about a product they would like to launch and have maybe sold a few prototypes. Maybe JMST would like the article userfied in case it does become notable at some point in the near future? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to reiterate that the article was posted by an affiliate of the company and is Spam.
An exchange from the AN/I that JMST started on me (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=248131943)
"User:ShockerHelp has been vandalizing an article Indie Spotlight We have taken the appropriate steps Wiki has asked us to do. We have ignored this user ShockerHelp who has no affiliation with the company as we found out today. We have posted a few warnings on the User:ShockerHelp talk page along with an offical Wiki block warning. We have silently changed the article back to it's original content more then once. ShockerHelp has not fixed the article or added any factual info but added slander and eronious comments. ShockerHelp has not edited any other articles on Wiki leading one to believe the user has created an account only to vandalize the Wiki system. --JMST (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Who's "we"? Is User:JMST a shared account? This seems to be a content dispute between two SPAs, neither of which seems to be contributing NPOV material. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)"
Nobody mistakenly uses the royal "we" without reason. The article was posted to promote a business ShockerHelp (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes sometimes I make mistakes as my english is not at best. You have no right to say I am promoting anything just like I can say you are a little troll out to destroy a company and their article for your own satisfaction which is not proper in the Wiki world.--JMST (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIV Take the time to read it. By the way, what is your native language? ShockerHelp (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what userfied is but the one product sold was not a prototype but a pre-release product on its own under the Indie Spotlight label. If that can be cited and then the to come added as shortform I can understand. Also User:ShockerHelp is using the companies name but is not affiliated with them and as far as their sales page the product is listed there and it is not listed with Series1 as it is a pre-release to series1 and is it's own product under the Indie Spotlight flag which is the whole purpose of this article. It may have been hastely posted but I thought with it releasing in Dec and already for sale in numerous stores including Diamoind comics I could write about it. I think the Mini Maxx indie spotlight figure should be taken into consideration and the reference linked to SDCC is a very noteworthy site and has been around for years and is the direct site of San Diego Comic Con. the company also produces Adult Swim's Dethklok figures which has Ref links here at Wiki to Television bumps showing the toys which makes them more then a notable company.--JMST (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand most of what you just wrote, but I must ask, how do you know who is and isn't affiliated with the company if you're not part of the company yourself? I've never heard of the store "Diamoind comics." These toys are not for sale there or anywhere else.ShockerHelp (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked them if you were affiliated with them through an IM and they said no you were not and they had no knowledge that there was even an article on Wiki about them or the Indie Spotlight line. As far as Diamond I misspelled it but Diamond Comics Distributors are selling the Indie Spotlight line and are listed in the July and october issue of Diamond Previews which is sold at all comic book shops across the United States which is where I ordered my set.--JMST (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're in Instant Messenger contact with a company to which you have no prior affiliation? ShockerHelp (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you are a disgruntle member of their forums who was banned and came here to Vandalize to vent your anger?--JMST (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for the Indie Spotlight line or the company Shocker Toys?? The product line has notability being mentioned in Washington times and San Diego Comic Con direct website as well as the company in those same higher functioning news channels.--JMST (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Pre-Order Indie Spotlight shipping in December
by shockertoys (shockertoyz@yahoo.com) on Oct 22, 2008 - 12:00 PM
(User information | Send a message http://www.shockertoys.com)
Pre-Order Indie Spotlight shipping in December
http://www.shockertoys.com/store.php"
Article is dated Jan. 5, 2007. Last comment before this one was Jan. 11, 2007.
On Oct 22, 2008, this comment was added to the article by Shocker Toys, someone who has in the past, both in the particular article and in others on the site, represented himself as the owner of Shocker Toys. On the same day, Oct 22, 2008, the Wiki Indie Spotlight article is created by JMST citing this long dead and forgotten article. Check the other references, including the ones that were deleted. Wikipedia was just one stop in a binge of spamming across the net. ShockerHelp (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does me finding refrences through google make me an affiliate of Shocker Toys?? This is bogus and childish attempts by User:ShockerHelp to now have the article deleted. But yet ShockerHelp wanted to change the article to read negitivly and now wants to have it deleted.--JMST (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that separately, on the exact same day, you both just happened to dredge up an article from almost two years ago? ShockerHelp (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting anything just explaining that I used Google to find all the references I used in ther article. If it is this hard to write articles on Wiki I just won't bother especially since trolls/vandals can just swoop in and cause all this controversy. I am just a collector who loves action figures and all the other lines I collect already have wiki pages so I figured this should have one as well. --JMST (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:ShockerHelp has ruined an article that could have been userfied or fixed to show a viable toyline with one figure already released to the public notably. I will not be defending this article as it seems bullies and trolls are allowed to do as they mey here at Wiki. I therfore change my vote to *Delete and will probably not be using Wiki anymore as it is to hard to put up an article about something I enjoy. It is also obvious that ShockerHelp has posted this Wiki article up on some unknown site to have others come here and vandalize the article further as can be seen in the change page with unkown users. This toyline was also mentioned in Washington Times until the Vandal removed the referance from the article http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/08/shocker-standing-tall-after-action-figure-flap/--JMST (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again how is the Washington Times a thin source??--JMST (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fluff piece touting a release date of last Summer for a toy line that still does not exist. It does nothing to address WP:Crystal, WP:Coatrack, or WP:Spam.ShockerHelp (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's am important article about a bigger company stealing an idea from a smaller toy company not a fluff piece.--JMST (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would like to see an article on this line when it does hit retail, but currently the article probably should be deleted due to WP:Crystal. Two limited edition items sold as convention exclusives do not constitute an action figure line. Whatever the reason, Shocker Toys does have a history of announcing and promoting product that does not see release. Until the first wave of figures is commercially available, this can only be an article about what Shocker Toys intends the toys to be, which is not the same thing as verifiable factual information. The article is also having problems which may not be deletable offenses but are still worrying. ShockerHelp obviously has negative feelings about the line and is repeatedly vandalizing the article, but JMST has also used the article to attack Toy Buz.Marvel Toys by bringing up the completely unproven allegations that the company stole the concept of action figures of independent comics characters and several licenses away from them. -- Demonskrye (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by everything I wrote for this article. Nothing I wrote is false. Please note, though I did revert some edits to a previous version, I did not write any of the early, admittedly rather harsh, attacks. I simply felt that though the "attack" version of the article was not in the spirit of Wikipedia, it was still much closer to the objective truth than the article as initially presented. I was simply being too lazy to make real edits and unaware of the policies against excessive reverts. Being made aware, I took the time to make proper edits. ShockerHelp (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never used the article to attack anyone but only stated fact on what I found on the net. The Action-Figure article shows proof that ToyBiz took the line and warned stores that they not Shocker Toys could get the line off the ground. The proof is in the article. Also the case of someone coming in here and harming an article is the same as all the other sites I have seen mention Shocker Toys it is like they are on a mission to ruin the company and that should not be allowed here on Wiki--JMST (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Bilby's idea we start a wiki article for the company Shocker Toys as it has plenty of refrences, I am too new to touch that though. Then we can trim this article down and have a redirect to Shocker Toys until the line is released. Oh and again I say "Washington Times" They are a very reliable source that took notice. --JMST (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WIKI's definition of a Citation: A citation is a reference to a source (not always the original source), published or unpublished.--JMST (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can find out what a reliable source is here: WP:RS ShockerHelp (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says citations needed!--JMST (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys, User talk:Smeagal It all seems so familiar... ShockerHelp (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so what I brought up the same thing when it was said I should start an article about Shocker Toys. It seems the same thing happened there with a bunch of trolls like yourself coming in and destroying the credit if the article and the company. If they created the article themselves then I can understand under the spam rule for its deletion. But I think they have enough creds and citations and Reliable sources now to be an article. But Shocker Toys said they will have nothing to do with either of the articles as they do not want to violate the spam rule here at Wiki. Yes they actually care instead of violating rules like making up names to fool wiki editors, vandalizing and other acts against wiki. You need to leave these articles alone as it seems you have a biasis and vandetta against them. From what I was told you are a disgruntle and banned member from their forums according to your IP address. Anyways I digress I think Shocker Toys should at least have an article as they have released a ton of products already according to info on their forums. Shockinis and conventions exclusives. As far as Indie Spotlight as I said before I agree with Bilby this should be a redirect to a Shocker Toys article if someone non-bias and experianced can write it.--JMST (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, since you care so much about not violating rules, you should be aware that the name calling in which you are engaging is itself a violation. WP:CIV ShockerHelp (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have recreated the Shocker Toys article and others are helping fix it properly to Wiki's standards please help if you can and stop the vandals from ruining it. Also if we can I placed hangon to this article so we can redirect it to the Shocker Toys article where we can place a small info that is verifiable about Indie Spotlight.--JMST (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will be able to find more sources for the new Shocker Toys article. In its present form it doesn't look like it would survive AfD. Remember that Shocker Toys as a *company* is expected to pass WP:CORP if we are going to keep an article on it. The Washington Times article is not (in my opinion) strong enough to sustain an entire Wikipedia article on either of these topics. Note that editor JMST re-created the Shocker Toys article today after speedy deletion, which is against our policies. A previous version of Shocker Toys was deleted in April, 2007 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a hangon tag and it was ignored because I forgot to remove the speedy delete tag so that is my mistake.--JMST (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at it and it's .... weak... I think if better sources aren't found in a couple of days, it should be killed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an article in the Bergen Record about the company and they had a live TV bump for their SDCC toy of Dethklok? I cannot find the bergen record article as it was on the Indie Spotlight article and was undone I think. But a live TV mention and Bergen Record along with Washington Times should constitute something, yes? Plus they have been in 4 or 5 major magazines that they mention on their site.--JMST (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the David in a David and Goliath scenario to be considered notable, I would think that the David would have to have made some sort of an impact. I see no evidence that Mattel, or any other toy company, is even aware that they exist, much less that they have overcome them in even the slightest manner. ShockerHelp (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't exist either, maybe you don't have enough creds to even be here ShockerHelp.--JMST (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2008 (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.