Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocker Toys (2nd nomination)


 * 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. 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.  kur  ykh   21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Shocker Toys
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Non-notable company. Article deleted before (April 2007), and nothing new has occurred to change the company's status. References are very weak. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the submissions are made from fans and the data collected is from trusted sources fromarround the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi182 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've been working on the article for a bit, and since 2007 the company has been discussed in the Washington Post 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 have a reputation for not always delivering on their products, but I'd argue that they have enough coverage to meet WP:Note, especially with the dispute they seem to have had with Marvel Toys. - Bilby (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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?  ShockerHelp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 sources. - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - 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.--JMST (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop with your personal attacks on me. ShockerHelp (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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?--JMST (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - 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.Adycarter (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This user has COI as he wrote an article for another toy company for a competing product . 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.--JMST (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You also have a COI. Its been years since i've had anything to do with any of this, I logged into Wikipedia 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 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. Wikipedia 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)
 * Comment 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 deletion.--JMST (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentI 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 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. Adycarter (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 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.--JMST (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I encourage everyone to consider the proposed guidelines under WP:TOYS. "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 significant coverage, nor does the Washington Times article. ShockerHelp (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established by the sources cited in the article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a quick reply: first, WP:TOYS doesn't apply. You want WP:Corp or WP:Note. 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 Post Times article directly concerns the company, the company features in the title (Shocker standing tall after action-figure flap), 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 Playthings article is three paragraphs in a much 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. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 Post article you keep referencing is actually a Washington Times 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 WP:CORP, "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."  The Record article is clearly local coverage. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 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. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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' 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. ShockerHelp (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, I see it as the Washington Times seeing it as not 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 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?  ShockerHelp (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm baffled as to why a single-purpose account like yours could exist to see that the article about your company (which isn't overly negative at all) be deleted from wikipedia. But all the same, please read over Wikipedia's guidelines for dealing with a conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Didn't ShockerHelp or a sock puppet start the AFD process in the 1st place? That is what baffles me.--JMST (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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. ShockerHelp (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, wait! You think it's my company?!  That would be a no.  ShockerHelp (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. Themfromspace (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 accusations made at other editors 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).  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.  ShockerHelp (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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?--JMST (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 another article called Indie Spotlight to trick editors from questioning his vandalizing and skewing of the article.--JMST (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 User:58.173.234.63's comment should be removed or not counted.--JMST (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note — This has been reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbedit (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 November 2008
 * Comment 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 contributed to wiki or seems confused about their Delete mark that bothers me.--JMST (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep — Meets several criteria listed in WP:SK, 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 delete. Multiple verifiable secondary sources are there, and the general notability guideline is hence clearly satisfied. MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this is now a Speedy Keep WP:SK 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.

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, their CEO Geoff Beckett makes the same typing/syntax mistakes as JMST. Isn't that a direct Conflict Of Interest, and attempt to use Wikipedia as advertising? I am happy to prove my identity to any ACTUAL Wikipedia 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.234.62 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 that should be in your delete statement not attacking me.--JMST (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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 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. Sybilmpd (  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment 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 counted.--JMST (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 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?  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...--Sybilmpd
 * I have learned to be civil maybe you should also, take a look at WP:CIV.--JMST (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken EJ.--JMST (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So...if I post and edit other Wiki articles, that somehow makes my opinion more worthy of consideration?Sybilmpd

Comment 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 stay! ( http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml ) Worldwarhulk (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 (http://www.toymania.com/toybuzz/messages/73151.shtml) 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 admin@shockertoys.com. Clearly a COI exists.
 * Comment 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 online forum asking you to do so, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors."--JMST (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Including Shocker Toys on Wikipedia will be lending credibility and notability to a company which otherwise has none. It would not be in the spirit or best interests of Wikipedia to keep this article.SWH (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability covers two concepts on Wikipedia - 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, third-party references to support an article. Everything in the article is currently referenced to reliable, non-trivial sources, so it meets WP:Note (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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But even if we accept that judgment, I'm not convinced that only "good" companies should have articles, and a good Wikipedia article should be from a neutral point of view, 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 verified. (Given that too far on the negative side may also violate NPOV, too). - Bilby (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentPerhaps some of the more experienced editors will be able to clarify, but I would have thought that in order to meet WP:Note 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 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 WP:Spam and WP:COI, since the company CEO has proposed the topic. I believe this is where an inclusion would be damaging to Wiki.SWH (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, every footballer is notable, 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 WP:Note (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. - Bilby (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 things to sell on your own website or stall. SWH (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 been sufficiently covered in reliable sources. Specific guidelines may, depending on how you read them, talk about value. However, WP:Corp, 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. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment 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 here on Wiki and I am looking foward to editing more along with this article to make them better.--JMST (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentWhile 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 WP:COI 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 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 WP:COI in my viewSWH (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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.--JMST (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.--JMST (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep 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 pruned.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: Of the !voters above, I count only Themfromspace and Bilby as non-single-purpose accounts. All others seem to have come to Wikipedia (or logged back on after a long time) merely to promote or denigrate Shocker Toys.  Let me know the outcome of this debate. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:58, 13 November 2008 (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.