707:
hearsay" would seem to refer to the information the reporter got from the owner of
Shocker Toys about the situation. There is no corroborating evidence that there was any sort of real dispute, at least not any reported in the Washington Times' article. I think this weakens the case for notability, as the company seems to have tried to gain press by manufacturing a controversy where none existed. And the article ends with, "Now, if Mr. Beckett's product actually makes it to shelves this summer, he really can celebrate." Well, he can't celebrate because the product didn't make it to shelves this summer, or even this fall. Shocker Toys wasn't the last man standing, and certainly isn't standing tall, as the title of the article suggests.
1165:
patterns are the same. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is, most likely, a duck. Sucker Toys is non-notable because they have only produced 1 product - the
Suckini - in a failed attempt to capitalize on the minifigure craze. They couldn't compete with better products, such as the Stikfa or Minimate, so Sucker Toys tried to bring Indie Spotlight to market. Marvel Toys had the same idea, brought their product out, produced 2 lines and quit in the span of time Beckett is still trying to produce anything from the Indie Spotlight line. One failed toy line produced in 8 years does not make a notable company - unless it is an article about how to fail in every aspect of running a successful toy company.
579:. "A toy or game is not notable simply on the basis of being produced, sold, or marketed." The cited references are all trivial and do not provide significant coverage. A proper reference should exclude "mere mention of the game, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Trivial references include "personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable." I've posted online links to two of the cited print sources in the article's talk page under History and References, the article from the Record and the 2007 Playthings article. Please take the time to look at them. They do not include
414:
here to do the same thing and no matter what anyone adds you state that it isn't good enough. Also deletion can be performed only by administrators. Administrators can also view deleted pages and reverse ("undelete") any deletion. All such actions are logged. If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it. Why after making changes to the article and then when someone steps in to make the article better you nominate it for deletion along with some unkown IP non wiki user? Explain here and now why you think it fair to remove this article about a well known smaller toys company and leave articles for NECA, Marvel Toys, Plan B toys?--
1509:, which applies here, specifically speaks against being biased towards large organisations. As far as I can see, though, they exhibit at major toy fairs (whether or not the products are then always released), do sell in some stores (or so I gather with the Shockinis), and have been covered in trade and general sources. So while they are small, they seem to have attracted a degree of notice. If that is sufficient notice is the purpose of this debate. Mind you, if that means that we are lacking articles on more notable toy companies, then I'm all for more articles. :) This has been an interesting debate, though, whichever way it comes out. -
459:. He also was founding memeber for the forums of the minimate product showing employment is some manner to the company he wrote it for. Also his mention of stick things in a condescending manner shows his COI intentions. Fact, the stick things he refers to are the product Shockinis which are still sold today and sold worlwide. He also has stated on various other sites his knowledge and distaste of the Shockini products by Shocker Toys so why now has he forgotten what they are called? To me this is a sock puppet attempt to sway deletion of this article especially with the heavy COI which can be seen.--
1453:(as an aside, this isn't absolute proof that they should be written about here, though, hence this debate). As to COI, while I understand that many people believe JMST to be Geoff, I'm still inclined to assume good faith and accept JMST claims that she isn't - however, either way, I think the article itself is neutral, thanks in part to ShockerHelp. They may have proposed the deletion, which is fine, but their suggestions also kept the article from getting too positive as well. At this point it has been through a few editors, which tends to help with those problems. -
435:- Been deleted multiple times before, the article has been beefed up to make it slightly more encyclopedic but most of it is just fluff. Yes the company exist, and yes they have produced *some* merchandise but most of their output tends to be just noise to try and get attention. They released some stick things a couple of years back and since then some very limited run, convention only things. Yes they claim to be imminently releasing Indie Spot but they've said that two years ago. As per WP:Toys the sheer existence of the items doesn't make them notable.
885:
Please read the previous AfD for this article, the AfD for the deleted Indie
Spotlight article, and JMST's talk page. I think it is clear that JMST is the same user as Smeagal. Notice the exact same wording used in the discussions. Notice how this matches the writing style of the person(s) posting as representatives of Shocker Toys in so many of the references listed on this article's talk page. I think it is clear from just JMST's use of the plural pronouns early on, that JMST is affiliated with Shocker Toys.
1119:
their CEO Geoff
Beckett makes the same typing/syntax mistakes as JMST. Isn't that a direct Conflict Of Interest, and attempt to use Knowledge (XXG) as advertising? I am happy to prove my identity to any ACTUAL Knowledge (XXG) staff, but I do not appreciate being spammed by this JMST person in such a hostile manner, just for giving my opinion on something that I thought was open for discussion, in as neutral a manner as possible. Obviously their CEO, JMST, feels otherwise. I'm not happy with this treatment at all.
1559:
Fwoosh message board, where I somehow became a target of abuse from Geoff after posting my annoyance at regular delays, however I don't believe this presents an issue of COI for myself, as I have no affiliation with the company) If the allegedly impartial JMST knows who I am in such a short space of time, it would suggest if nothing else that he/she is in close, regular contact with the CEO (the company has 2 employees anyway), enough to be considered a potential issue of
1449:, if they played a game at the top level of the sport. (At least that's where current consensus and the guideline tends to sit - although clearly not everyone agrees it should be that way). I can see where you're coming from, but my understanding (others may differ, of course), is that the coverage in third party sources means that both they can be written about, and that others have deemed them worth writing about, which covers
479:
create, maintain and argue for the esxistence of the SHocker Toys article orignally. I was long ago lead to believe, and agreed with the fact that it is non noatable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a marketing site, the fact I wrote an article for what you deem to be a competing product surely is infact a plus, as Im familiar with toy companies on wiki, amusingly I dont even see how they're competing... 19:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
80:
747:
result of any sort of dispute with
Shocker Toys, at least not without a reference that discusses it in at least some depth. The Washington Times article itself gives reasons for Marvel Toys' troubles at the beginning of the piece, making me wonder why they chose to conflate their demise with the "dispute" with Shocker Toys. Just for a sensationalist headline?
383:- I also have been working on this article and have come up with many references. The article is small I admit but has a potential to grow since their current licenses have not been mentioned among other things. This user ShockerHelp was the one who vandalized an article related and is now trying to delete the Shocker Toys article out of spite.--
900:
of notablitly to prove you and AdyCarter wrong. And again I have contributed to other articles other then
Shocker Toys what have you done? Why with a name like ShockerHelp have you not helped with the article but only went against everything done to improve it? Are you affiliated with their company and they are just not telling the truth?--
506:
fed up of dealing with ShockPuppets of which you clearly are one. But which one? Geoff? Adi? who knows!/cares?. Icame here to vote in the deletion, which I have done. The article IS better than it was, but its still about as encylopedic and warranted as an article on my collection of uniquely crafted, limited edition snot stained tissues.
1307:
how insignificant they are. Few of the articles are specifically about
Shocker Toys, just brief mentions amongst other things, of those focusing on the company, it is clear they're only based upon press releases and attempts by the company to gain attention, rather than the fact that they achieved anything noteworthy.
685:
existence of the dispute, but a description of what those involved were throwing around. Anyway, anyone else is welcome to read it and form their own opinion. It certainly isn't enough to hang a whole article on (hence all the other refs), but does seem to speak to notability based on mu understanding of it. -
1314:
I understand that more weight is going to be given to the judgement call of experience Wiki editors, as well it should. But I feel it is worth informing those of you who will make the decision of the kind of company being dealt with here. As others have pointed out, JMST is in fact Geoff
Beckett from
1310:
The company is known amongst the online toy collecting community more for the fact that they're habitual spammers of message boards (often as seen here, posting as an anonymous fan) and they try to gain attention by sending press releases to gain coverage to try to appear legitimate. As also shown in
1306:
Shocker Toys is a non-notable company. As seen in all of the references shown, the coverage the company gets is only obtained by press releases or stories created by the company themselves. In 8 years of existence, they've managed to get only a handful of articles covering them, which should indicate
884:
are you speaking about? Please be specific. I believe JMST is strongly affiliated with
Shocker Toys. That is the only accusation I've made. That JMST has written repeatedly that he/she is in contact with Shocker Toys on a regular basis seems to suggest I am right (for example, the next comment).
623:), and there are multiple paragraphs discussing the dispute. The Record's article is only about the company and quite long, and provides some history as to how they were formed, who was involved and their early unreleased products. Indeed, it was perfect for the first part of the history section. The
523:
AdyCarter you have a right to your opinion. I only think that if you thought it was notable at one time and then were swayed by many false deletes then you never gave it a chance. This time this is being monitored and is getting a fair vote (sans a few socks) and you should see that it does have many
1534:
Well it has been 5 days now and it clearly seems the last votes were made at the last minute to pollute the concensus. So the non COI comments seem to state keep the article so let's remove the AFD and move onto working together to make it a great article. I have already worked on 3-4 other articles
921:
I started this article and have verified that
ShockerHelp is in no way affiliated with Shocker Toys. I have asked the company and they have said he is a former forum member who was banned as he was under a false name there to start problems. He is also under a false name here which he started during
899:
I suppose I am affiliated with Obama's campaign as well? Maybe I am an alien? ShockerHelp your accusations are ridiculous and steadly come after COI is mentioned with you and AdyCarter. Please list more firm reasons why this article should be deleted instead of non-notable as we know there is plenty
361:
I probably responded to this below, but while you may disagree with the Washing Times' account, they describe it in terms that sound like a dispute to me. That aside, you've already mentioned that you disagree with their account, which is fair enough - but we need to stick to verifiable and reliable
1581:
SWH your opinion while it is yours has been all over the internet and I have read about it on the Shocker Toys forums in great detail. I thought ShockerHelp was you but it seems they were not. Why must you come here to throw rocks why can't you just contribute to make toy articles better. You are a
1015:- Non-Notable Company. After reading the entry it talks mostly about products they either canceled, or have yet to produce. I think that fails WP:CYRSTAL? If only product information remained about what was actually produced, a substantial portion of the article should be deleted to satisfy Crystal.
505:
I thought it should exist long ago, Editors pointed out it really should't. We argued (look through enough of my edit history and you'll see it). I realised they were right, I logged in now, saw it was still on my watch list and was again up for deletion so I added my opinion. Amusing as this is Im
478:
You also have a COI. Its been years since i've had anything to do with any of this, I logged into Knowledge (XXG) and was amused to find all this still on my watch list. Im not, nor have ever been employed by a toy company as discussed previously. If Ihave such an issue with Shocker Toys, why did I
413:
This is not a personal attack when looking at the previous article you can see that you vandalized the article to look bad instead of properly adding info or refrences to back up what you added. Now that the article has been deleted and this article was made follwing the rules of wiki you have come
1504:
That makes it a tad more complex. :) Mostly because we just went through a rather big debate to determine the relationship of special sub guidelines, like those governing footballers, to the general notability guidelines. The GNG doesn't talk about the value of the topic, but about whether it has
1414:
the sources should discuss something worthy of notice. None of the articles cited seem to show the company has achieved anything notable, such as releasing notable product, or achieved any sort of notable acomplishment. The topics being discussed (signing licences, proposing potential product) are
1331:
I do not post on that website nor have I ever heard of it. That is not my post and it looks like anyone can post under any made up name. So as far as I know all of these last votes are COI. Please read above "If you came to this page because someone asked you to, or because you saw a message on an
1284:
I won't vote because I came here because of a post at RTM by JMST and I respect the message on the top of the page. Don't need to because when Indie Spotlight comes out everyone will know how great Shocker Toys is! People supporting Shocker here need to go tell those fools that Shocker is here to
1146:
Remember: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus. Not to point fingers and say the article is a WP:SPAM. The AFD is to flesh out through consensus if the company is WP:NOTE. So if you can clearly argue and show why with all the refrences that this is a non-notable company then the
1045:
This person says to delete some of article but marks all of it for delete. That should mean he should contribute his thoughts on how the article is to be fixed on the discussion page for the article not marked for delete. I don't mind people's opinion to delete but when it is by someone who hasn't
746:
a real dispute, but just a guy holding a grudge against a company for supposedly stealing his idea, despite a misleading headline (as if those are rare). If the article stays around, and if you keep the line in, I think it is important not to suggest that the end of Marvel Toys was in any way the
325:
Times and had additional coverage in Playthings. Sources include the two mentioned, Animation Magazine and The Record (a long, although old, article about the company), while another three print refs have been identified but not yet tracked down. Generally, they're a small toy company, who seem to
1415:
not notable, as it is something every toy company does. It would be akin to saying a footballer is notable because he merely played a game of football. I agree that whether a company is "good" or "bad" should not sway a decision for inclusion. However in this instance, the larger issues relate to
706:
But who was throwing what around? It seems clear in the article that the author did not contact Marvel Toys for a response to the accusations. The "licensed agreement reality" would seem to refer to Marvel Toys having put out their product without any sort of legal difficulties. The "'he said'
684:
Sorry - clearly you're right. It is the Washington Times - my brain must be fried. :) That aside, the line that you're misquoting is "A war of e-mails and emotional releases became a murky swamp of licensed-agreement reality versus "he said" hearsay at best" in which the "hearsay" isn't about the
1558:
if indeed it is true. Within an hour of posting on here, JMST has posted on my user talk page, suggesting that they know exactly who I am, due to previous negative views I have expressed about the company (and I'm more than willing to admit to the fact that I have encountered this company on the
1118:
Sock puppet? Huh? I've since received messages from this JMST person demanding my personal information. Is that considered normal? I have no affiliation with any toy company, or anybody on this site, so I really don't know what this JMST person is on about? I looked up more info on Shocker Toys,
1477:
Quite true regarding the football analogy, but I was picturing just a small time game rather than a game at the top of the sport. I guess in this case we could equate it to a toy company perhaps being notable if their product is sold worldwide in major retailers, as opposed to just making a few
1211:
You aren't a woman Geoff. You're the only person I know who still doesn't know how to properly use the word 'biased'. You also haven't grasped the differences between libel and slander - despite years of trying to threaten people who have spoken out against your antics. Civilized discussion?
1164:
Strong vote to DELETE. Clear case of COI on this article and all arguments against deletion. JMST is obviously the same poster as Smeagol from the 1st Shocker page. He is also Geoff Beckett who is the CEO of Sucker Toys. No one else in the world uses the word 'bias' like he does. The speech
1370:
Notability covers two concepts on Knowledge (XXG) - are there sufficient reliable, third party sources to write an encyclopedic article about a topic, and is the topic significant enough to have an article? The answer to the first, in this case, I think is yes, because there are enough decent,
724:
I think I'll step back and let other editors decide. But put simply, you see it as a manufactured controversy, the Washington Times saw it as real enough to warrant publishing and use as the lead for an article. Either way, it seems enough to warrant one or two lines in the WP article. -
967:
This user is a sock Puppet and furthermore he voted delete based on ShockerHelp being a company employee which is untrue. Furthermore he states no advertised products were released which is also false as Shockinis were sold along with various other convention exclusives. I think that
1375:(I accept that some articles may be based on press releases, but even if some are, the main one isn't, and others aren't). The second one, though, seems to be where you and other people opposing the article are coming from. The problem is that it involves a value judgment, akin to
826:
I'm baffled, having read the COI guidelines, that you could suggest that I have a conflict of interest without pointing out any reason for making the suggestion. Instead of throwing around an accusation of COI, perhaps point out what I have actually done that is out of line.
1665:
Of the !voters above, I count only Themfromspace and Bilby as non-single-purpose accounts. All others seem to have come to Knowledge (XXG) (or logged back on after a long time) merely to promote or denigrate Shocker Toys. Let me know the outcome of this debate.
485:
So if you fought that the article should exist, then why did you mark it for delete and why are you now nominating delete? Your motives seem very confusing and I do not see how having an article on a watch list that has improved greatly is warrented for
1236:
We can assume that the admin who closes this AfD debate will be smart enough to figure that out. That person can make allowance for contributions from IPs and from single-purpose accounts who have joined the AfD discussion but not edited anywhere else.
48:. Ignoring all the personal attacks, accusations of COI (which isn't even a content guideline; it's a conduct one), and incivility, and giving the arguments of SPAs and IPs their due weight, there is only one conclusion I can reach, and it is this one.
1315:
ShockerToys. A quick look at the language used on the ShockerToys forum where he posts as ShockerToys will satisfy anyone of the fact based on his distinctive language skills. Also, as posted by WorldWarHulk the discussion started on RTM (
1193:
First off I am a woman and Wow and this user has no COI at all or bias against the company. And calling of names, libel and slander is uncalled for in this civilized discussion. I do not think that this Delete from User Sybilmpd should be
615:. But even if it did, the refs concerned don't suffer from any of the problems you listed. Trivial is always a tad difficult to interpret, but in regard to the three you mentioned: the primary/lead topic discussed in the Washington
1212:
You're the one calling everyone 'sock puppets' 'bias trolls' and generally accusing anyone voting for deletion of either having COI or being out to get Sucker Toys. All of which are trademarks of Geoff Beckett. Hmm...--
939:
DELETE: Non-Notable Company. All text presented by obvious company employee, for advertisement purposes. Unable to provide suitable primary sources. Company does not seem to have released any product advertised.
653:
The sources do not provide a depth of coverage that is substantial. Trivial may be a tad difficult to interpret, but it clearly applies here. The Playthings article is the definition of trivial. The Washington
346:
What is this "dispute" with Marvel Toys? Was this a court case? Were any sort of legal papers filed? If I write some angry emails to someone of note, then I am notable for being in a dispute with that person?
1639:
The sources aren't the best, but they are non-trivial. The article as currently worded has some issues. The way it is now certainly represents the company as more notable than it actually is. It needs to be
631:
longer article, and describes what they were to show at the Toy Fair. I certainly wouldn't regard it as notable coverage for any of their products, but I'm less certain in regard to the company as a whole. -
662:
article, making me wonder how closely you have read it. The "multiple paragraphs discussing the dispute" is really more like a couple of lines, and describe the entire situation as "hearsay at best." From
1349:
Including Shocker Toys on Knowledge (XXG) will be lending credibility and notability to a company which otherwise has none. It would not be in the spirit or best interests of Knowledge (XXG) to keep this
201:
876:
I feel that accusation is a bit ridiculous. Does your name suggest you are an alien? Or perhaps an astronaut? It's just a name. Please stick to what I have actually done wrong. What accusation
862:
Your name alone hints that you have a personal affiliation with the company, not to mention all the accusations you have made at other editors in this AfD and at the article itself.
87:
1602:
Just on that topic before I run away and leave this for others, COI isn't typically an issue for deleting articles. It is, however, definitly a concern when it comes to editing. -
261:
1554:
While I respect wanting to take someone in good faith, I believe it is seriously worth noting the evidence suggesting JMST is the CEO of Shocker, as it presents a major issue of
1311:
the articles, this toy line has been "coming soon" for close to three years. The company tries to entice people to give them money for "pre-orders" for items they haven't made.
1071:, including what I think is a vexatious nomination which has transformed into a hotbed of disruption and dispute, and that no one unrelated to the topic has !voted to
196:
1379:. But even if we accept that judgment, I'm not convinced that only "good" companies should have articles, and a good Knowledge (XXG) article should be from a
524:
noteable points. If you wanted to work on the article with me I would be honored to work with you as you did a great job on the minimated article on wiki.--
1383:, which this one is. Thus the problems that people point out - such as the missed release dates - should be (and are) in the article when they can be
1616:
I agree but if COI does come into play, taking myself out due to me creating the article leaves only 3 non COI nominations and they are all keep.--
271:
Non-notable company. Article deleted before (April 2007), and nothing new has occurred to change the company's status. References are very weak.
1319:) by JMST urging people to come here to help vote to keep the page is further proof. The user JMST on that forum has registered the email address
1112:
under the rules of Wiki can an admin close this down and remve the AFD from the article? It says users can but is recommended Admins do the deed.
1332:
online forum asking you to do so, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Knowledge (XXG) editors."--
1371:
third-party references to support an article. Everything in the article is currently referenced to reliable, non-trivial sources, so it meets
96:
1126:
947:
126:
1582:
toy collector are you not? I am here to have a good time and do something I enjoy which is contributing to a hobby I greatly enjoy.--
17:
1505:
been sufficiently covered in reliable sources. Specific guidelines may, depending on how you read them, talk about value. However,
228:
223:
1683:
1673:
1657:
1647:
1625:
1611:
1591:
1572:
1544:
1518:
1487:
1462:
1432:
1396:
1359:
1341:
1298:
1260:
1246:
1231:
1203:
1179:
1156:
1134:
1096:
1055:
1006:
977:
955:
931:
909:
894:
871:
857:
836:
816:
797:
756:
734:
716:
694:
676:
641:
592:
566:
533:
515:
495:
468:
444:
423:
408:
392:
371:
356:
339:
309:
280:
232:
63:
620:
112:
215:
1031:
305:
1698:
667:, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." The Record article is clearly local coverage.
36:
922:
another article called Indie Spotlight to trick editors from questioning his vandalizing and skewing of the article.--
1410:
Perhaps some of the more experienced editors will be able to clarify, but I would have thought that in order to meet
326:
have a reputation for not always delivering on their products, but I'd argue that they have enough coverage to meet
85:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
158:
1697:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1423:, since the company CEO has proposed the topic. I believe this is where an inclusion would be damaging to Wiki.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1376:
321:- I've been working on the article for a bit, and since 2007 the company has been discussed in the Washington
1130:
951:
867:
793:
562:
1175:
1122:
1019:
943:
293:
289:- the submissions are made from fans and the data collected is from trusted sources fromarround the world
142:
116:
1294:
780:
like yours could exist to see that the article about your company (which isn't overly negative at all) be
101:
1272:
So...if I post and edit other Wiki articles, that somehow makes my opinion more worthy of consideration?
890:
853:
832:
752:
712:
672:
588:
404:
352:
276:
1290:
807:
Didn't ShockerHelp or a sock puppet start the AFD process in the 1st place? That is what baffles me.--
1242:
1446:
1670:
1644:
1535:
here on Wiki and I am looking foward to editing more along with this article to make them better.--
1273:
1213:
1166:
511:
440:
1090:
1023:
1000:
863:
789:
558:
297:
148:
79:
1617:
1583:
1536:
1333:
1252:
1223:
1195:
1148:
1047:
969:
923:
901:
808:
525:
487:
460:
415:
384:
1564:
1479:
1424:
1351:
219:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1506:
1450:
1416:
1411:
1380:
1372:
990:
664:
612:
608:
604:
576:
327:
1027:
886:
849:
828:
748:
708:
668:
584:
400:
348:
301:
272:
56:
1560:
1555:
1420:
1219:
1080:
785:
777:
1607:
1514:
1458:
1392:
1238:
730:
690:
637:
367:
335:
1109:
1068:
456:
This user has COI as he wrote an article for another toy company for a competing product
1667:
1641:
1621:
1587:
1540:
1337:
1316:
1286:
1256:
1227:
1199:
1152:
1051:
973:
927:
905:
812:
529:
507:
491:
464:
436:
419:
388:
1677:
1651:
1384:
1076:
1568:
1483:
1428:
1355:
1084:
994:
624:
211:
176:
164:
132:
69:
249:
111:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1320:
1046:
contributed to wiki or seems confused about their Delete mark that bothers me.--
619:
Times article directly concerns the company, the company features in the title (
51:
1603:
1510:
1454:
1388:
726:
686:
633:
363:
331:
1387:. (Given that too far on the negative side may also violate NPOV, too). -
330:, especially with the dispute they seem to have had with Marvel Toys. -
784:
from wikipedia. But all the same, please read over Knowledge (XXG)'s
1218:
I have learned to be civil maybe you should also, take a look at
1691:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
968:
User:58.173.234.63's comment should be removed or not counted.--
575:
I encourage everyone to consider the proposed guidelines under
557:
Notability is established by the sources cited in the article.
74:
105:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1147:
that should be in your delete statement not attacking me.--
95:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
742:
Actually, I see it as the Washington Times seeing it as
457:
256:
245:
241:
237:
658:
article you keep referencing is actually a Washington
1317:
http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml
1287:
http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml
583:coverage, nor does the Washington Times article.
202:
Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination)
786:guidelines for dealing with a conflict of interest
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1701:). No further edits should be made to this page.
621:Shocker standing tall after action-figure flap
1478:things to sell on your own website or stall.
125:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
99:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
119:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
399:Stop with your personal attacks on me.
194:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1067:— Meets several criteria listed in
193:
197:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys
24:
627:article is three paragraphs in a
1108:Since this is now a Speedy Keep
848:company?! That would be a no.
78:
1445:Actually, every footballer is
1:
1684:03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
1658:03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
1626:14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1612:13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1592:13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1573:13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1545:12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1519:13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1488:13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1463:12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1433:12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1397:11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1360:11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1342:12:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1299:11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1261:04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1247:03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1232:04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1204:02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1180:00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
1157:13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
1135:09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
1097:03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1056:12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
1007:00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
534:12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
372:11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
115:on the part of others and to
64:21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
1172:
1083:is hence clearly satisfied.
1081:general notability guideline
1077:verifiable secondary sources
989:— This has been reported to
978:15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
956:08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
932:15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
910:20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
895:18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
872:10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
858:09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
837:08:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
817:15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
798:08:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
757:09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
735:09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
717:09:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
695:09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
677:08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
642:08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
593:07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
567:20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
516:20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
496:20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
469:19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
445:17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
424:20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
409:17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
393:15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
357:17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
340:11:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
310:16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
281:08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
603:Just a quick reply: first,
1718:
844:Oh, wait! You think it's
1034:) 13:04, 10 November 2008
1694:Please do not modify it.
1322:. Clearly a COI exists.
776:I'm baffled as to why a
607:doesn't apply. You want
32:Please do not modify it.
157:; accounts blocked for
127:single-purpose accounts
97:policies and guidelines
1251:Point well taken EJ.--
778:single-purpose account
192:AfDs for this article:
1663:To the closing admin:
1381:neutral point of view
1178:comment was added at
880:made at other editor
1079:are there, and the
109:by counting votes.
88:not a majority vote
618:
324:
44:The result was
1125:comment added by
1036:
1022:comment added by
946:comment added by
616:
322:
313:
296:comment added by
190:
189:
186:
113:assume good faith
1709:
1696:
1184:
1183:
1169:
1137:
1093:
1087:
1035:
1016:
1003:
997:
958:
312:
290:
259:
253:
235:
184:
172:
156:
140:
121:
91:, but instead a
82:
75:
61:
59:
54:
34:
1717:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1699:deletion review
1692:
1173:
1167:
1120:
1091:
1085:
1017:
1001:
995:
941:
291:
255:
226:
210:
207:
174:
162:
146:
130:
117:sign your posts
73:
57:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1715:
1713:
1704:
1703:
1687:
1686:
1660:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1576:
1575:
1548:
1547:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1377:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1216:
1206:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1100:
1099:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1010:
1009:
983:
982:
981:
980:
937:
936:
935:
934:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
860:
839:
821:
820:
819:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
698:
697:
645:
644:
570:
569:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
448:
447:
429:
428:
427:
426:
396:
395:
377:
376:
375:
374:
343:
342:
315:
314:
266:
265:
206:
205:
204:
199:
191:
188:
187:
83:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1714:
1702:
1700:
1695:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:the Orphanage
1675:
1672:
1669:
1664:
1661:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:the Orphanage
1649:
1646:
1643:
1638:
1635:
1634:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1215:
1210:
1207:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1170:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:58.173.234.62
1124:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1088:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1014:
1008:
1004:
998:
992:
988:
985:
984:
979:
975:
971:
966:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
957:
953:
949:
948:58.173.234.62
945:
933:
929:
925:
920:
917:
911:
907:
903:
898:
897:
896:
892:
888:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
864:Themfromspace
861:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
838:
834:
830:
825:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
795:
791:
790:Themfromspace
787:
783:
779:
775:
772:
758:
754:
750:
745:
741:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
723:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
705:
702:
701:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
683:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
661:
657:
652:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
630:
626:
622:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
568:
564:
560:
559:Themfromspace
556:
553:
552:
535:
531:
527:
522:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
493:
489:
484:
481:
480:
477:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
430:
425:
421:
417:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
373:
369:
365:
360:
359:
358:
354:
350:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
320:
317:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
278:
274:
270:
263:
258:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
203:
200:
198:
195:
182:
178:
170:
166:
160:
154:
150:
144:
138:
134:
128:
124:
120:
118:
114:
108:
104:
103:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
77:
76:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1693:
1690:
1678:
1676:
1662:
1652:
1650:
1636:
1551:
1531:
1407:
1367:
1348:
1328:
1313:
1309:
1303:
1302:
1291:Worldwarhulk
1281:
1280:
1269:
1208:
1190:
1163:
1143:
1117:
1105:
1072:
1064:
1042:
1012:
1011:
986:
964:
938:
918:
881:
877:
845:
841:
823:
804:
781:
773:
743:
739:
721:
703:
681:
659:
655:
650:
628:
600:
580:
572:
571:
554:
520:
502:
482:
475:
453:
432:
380:
318:
286:
268:
267:
212:Shocker Toys
180:
168:
159:sockpuppetry
152:
141:; suspected
136:
122:
110:
106:
100:
92:
86:
70:Shocker Toys
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1174:—Preceding
1121:—Preceding
1075:. Multiple
1065:Speedy keep
1018:—Preceding
942:—Preceding
887:ShockerHelp
850:ShockerHelp
829:ShockerHelp
749:ShockerHelp
709:ShockerHelp
669:ShockerHelp
585:ShockerHelp
581:significant
486:deletion.--
401:ShockerHelp
381:Speedy Keep
362:sources. -
349:ShockerHelp
292:—Preceding
273:ShockerHelp
1563:in my view
1239:EdJohnston
1194:counted.--
625:Playthings
93:discussion
1668:Aervanath
1666:Thanks!--
1642:Aervanath
1640:pruned.--
1637:Weak keep
508:Adycarter
437:Adycarter
149:canvassed
143:canvassed
102:consensus
1385:verified
1350:article.
1285:stay! (
1274:Sybilmpd
1214:Sybilmpd
1168:Sybilmpd
1123:unsigned
1086:MuZemike
1032:contribs
1020:unsigned
996:MuZemike
944:unsigned
306:contribs
294:unsigned
262:View log
181:username
175:{{subst:
169:username
163:{{subst:
153:username
147:{{subst:
137:username
131:{{subst:
1552:Comment
1532:Comment
1507:WP:Corp
1451:WP:Note
1447:notable
1417:WP:Spam
1412:WP:Note
1408:Comment
1373:WP:Note
1368:Comment
1329:Comment
1282:Comment
1270:Comment
1209:Comment
1191:Comment
1176:undated
1144:Comment
1106:Comment
1043:Comment
991:WP:COIN
965:Comment
919:Comment
842:Comment
824:Comment
805:Comment
782:deleted
774:Comment
740:Comment
722:Comment
704:Comment
682:Comment
665:WP:CORP
651:Comment
613:WP:Note
609:WP:Corp
605:WP:TOYS
601:Comment
577:WP:TOYS
573:Comment
521:Comment
503:Comment
483:Comment
476:Comment
454:Comment
328:WP:Note
229:protect
224:history
145:users:
1561:WP:COI
1556:WP:COI
1421:WP:COI
1304:Delete
1220:WP:CIV
1073:delete
1024:Mbedit
1013:Delete
433:Delete
298:Adi182
269:Delete
257:delete
233:delete
1671:lives
1645:lives
1604:Bilby
1511:Bilby
1455:Bilby
1389:Bilby
1110:WP:SK
1069:WP:SK
727:Bilby
687:Bilby
660:Times
634:Bilby
364:Bilby
332:Bilby
260:) – (
250:views
242:watch
238:links
123:Note:
16:<
1622:talk
1618:JMST
1608:talk
1588:talk
1584:JMST
1569:talk
1541:talk
1537:JMST
1515:talk
1484:talk
1459:talk
1429:talk
1419:and
1393:talk
1356:talk
1338:talk
1334:JMST
1295:talk
1257:talk
1253:JMST
1243:talk
1228:talk
1224:JMST
1200:talk
1196:JMST
1153:talk
1149:JMST
1131:talk
1092:talk
1052:talk
1048:JMST
1028:talk
1002:talk
987:Note
974:talk
970:JMST
952:talk
928:talk
924:JMST
906:talk
902:JMST
891:talk
868:talk
854:talk
833:talk
813:talk
809:JMST
794:talk
753:talk
731:talk
713:talk
691:talk
673:talk
656:Post
638:talk
629:much
617:Post
589:talk
563:talk
555:Keep
530:talk
526:JMST
512:talk
492:talk
488:JMST
465:talk
461:JMST
441:talk
420:talk
416:JMST
405:talk
389:talk
385:JMST
368:talk
353:talk
336:talk
323:Post
319:Keep
302:talk
287:Keep
277:talk
246:logs
220:talk
216:edit
46:keep
1565:SWH
1480:SWH
1425:SWH
1352:SWH
1222:.--
744:not
611:or
177:csp
173:or
165:csm
133:spa
107:not
58:ykh
53:kur
1674:in
1648:in
1624:)
1610:)
1590:)
1571:)
1543:)
1517:)
1486:)
1461:)
1431:)
1395:)
1358:)
1340:)
1297:)
1289:)
1259:)
1245:)
1230:)
1202:)
1155:)
1133:)
1095:)
1054:)
1030:•
1005:)
993:.
976:)
954:)
930:)
908:)
893:)
870:)
856:)
846:my
835:)
815:)
796:)
788:.
755:)
733:)
715:)
693:)
675:)
640:)
591:)
565:)
532:)
514:)
494:)
467:)
443:)
422:)
407:)
391:)
370:)
355:)
338:)
308:)
304:•
279:)
248:|
244:|
240:|
236:|
231:|
227:|
222:|
218:|
183:}}
171:}}
161::
155:}}
139:}}
129::
1620:(
1606:(
1586:(
1567:(
1539:(
1513:(
1482:(
1457:(
1427:(
1391:(
1354:(
1336:(
1293:(
1255:(
1241:(
1226:(
1198:(
1182:.
1171:(
1151:(
1129:(
1089:(
1050:(
1026:(
999:(
972:(
950:(
926:(
904:(
889:(
882:s
878:s
866:(
852:(
831:(
811:(
792:(
751:(
729:(
711:(
689:(
671:(
636:(
587:(
561:(
528:(
510:(
490:(
463:(
439:(
418:(
403:(
387:(
366:(
351:(
334:(
300:(
275:(
264:)
254:(
252:)
214:(
185:.
179:|
167:|
151:|
135:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
