Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys

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. Majorly (hot!) 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shocker Toys

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

Forwarded from WP:RFD, as suggested by User:WJBscribe. Appears to be a nonnotable line of toys, without references. YechielMan 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make me laugh their lines are well notable toys and found all through different search engines! The Shockins have been sold around the world and online. The licenses based off their items are well known throughout the comic world, music world and the wiki world. Stop trying to keep a company down when people make articles about them its getting ridiculous! They have every rite to be here the same as Stikfas, Neca, McFarlane, Hasbro and the rest of them! They have made convention exclusives which are on ebay and in price guides. I think you need to look a little harder next time buddy or maybe you just do not want to. I think this article should remain if cleaned up properly. I have done some work on it myself but am no super editor like the rest of you. This is your job as Wiki editors not to delete everything but to clean things up and make them presentable for others looking for this info. Oh and there is plenty of references to their toys do a search they are also in every real toy magazine that you can pick up at Borders or Barnes and Nobles or your comic shop! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smeagal (talk • contribs).

  • Speedy Delete - Yet again Geoff Beckett desides to use his best marketing mind to spam Wikipedia and incites people on his boards to stick up for him. http://shockertoys.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2585 This article has been deleted many, many, many times. He goes away for a while then drags all this nonsense back up. Adycarter 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's a re-occuring problem, maybe we should look into getting the website blacklisted? DarkSaber2k 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fully agree, if you go back through the old RfD logs, you'll see quite how crazy and insane its been... Sockpuppets, Meatpuppets, offensive language the lot... Adycarter 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.SlideAndSlip 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable company. Cool BlueLight my Fire! 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow how nice of everyone to gang up on one person and agree with two bias people against this company. It should not be deleted as there is no reason to. It is a noteable company and makes noteable products therefore it should remain listed. And if it should not how about reasons why instead of talking trash about the companies owner, how is that not against the rules here?? Plus he did not write the article someone else did so it is not advertising either. Is there anu sane editors here who are not bias?

I don't believe I talked trash, I stated fact about past events. The owner of Shocker Toys may or may not have made the article, but its always been him (or a friend) previously, and surprisingly you are countering with the same lines used in the past (I apparently work for a rival company etc), interesting too how the forum thread I linked to has been removed too... Adycarter 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I still see the article...oh right its is for members only. The fact that you are racing around their forums shows that you have intentions that are not good. You are giving wiki a bad name for sure and they should put a stop to it. Back on topic looks like someone cleaned up the article and it looks good. Some stuff has been removed but I agree since they didnt have facts to back them up. The stuff that remains is fact and has external resources attached by the editor who cleaned it up. See now this is a logical way to go about things.

Well it wasn't for members only... I took a look at the forum as it was linked to on the page. Im hardly "racing around it". The "someone" who cleaned up the article just now was me. So Im giving wiki a bad name? How exactly? Adycarter 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete -sources produced so far are low quality and google news doesn't give any better options. Addhoc 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

hey Addhoc I'll tell MTV you called them low quality....this is what I mean even with the proof the beholders remain blind and cast judgment with a blind eye instead of doing their jobs! There is also plenty of sources besides MTV, Toy magazine articles, ABC news articles including WIKI pages containing info on the Toy Company. The article has been cleaned up and should be worked on so it may serve to show wiki readers the vast products offered by different toy companies.

The MTV source is a trivial mention from a gossip page. Addhoc 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Neither citation constitutes any evidence whatsoever of notability of the company. --Orange Mike 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The company does exist and does make a few products. While thier infamous reputation precedes them, there is no reason to not have the information included about things that they have made in the past. In that sense, thier site would count as a verifiable source, but only as it pertains to thier past product catalogue. There are a few e-tail sites which verify that the product is either in-stock or sold out, so there is legitimate merit to some of User:Smeagal's claims. There is a community of fans around their product, just as there is for McFarlane Toys, NECA, SOTA, Stikfas, etc. albiet a smaller one. They also had a few SDCC exclusives that did recieve covereage from reputable news sources within the action figure community. The information and proper links are out there, Smeagal, and Shocker Toys in the past, have failed to provide them. My only area for concern about this entire deal is that there are improperly sourced claims of fact elsewhere in the Wikipedia pertaining to actual product where it really means product that this company claims to be actively developing. Those are two very different animals. One says that the product exits and is being sold/distributed, the other says that the product is being developed and has not yet hit the market. --Avatar of chaos 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Change Vote To Keep(kinda) - I've cleaned up the page to contain some information on the company and its licenses, Ive removed the list of products, as Wiki isn't a catalogue and this is now in style with other toy company pages. Adycarter 15:11, 28 April 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.