Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2011 January 1
2011 January 3 >

2 January 2011[edit]

  • iPad 2 – Redirect and protection endorsed. We are only a few days further on from the original AfD, whose close nobody is claiming was faulty. That in itself would suggest that it's worth waiting a little longer. That aside, I judge the consensus here to be that insufficient information exists and is confirmed to sustain a standalone article at the present time. When Apple releases more information, (ie when there is something more to write than merely repeating speculation, no matter how well-informed the journalists think they are nor how respectable the publication printing the speculation) an article can be written. Until such a time, any content on the iPad 2 belongs in iPad, where it will be just as accessible to readers, courtesy of the redirect. – HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
iPad 2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Many editors have gotten it in their head that Apple must first acknowledge it's product before it is given an article. The iPad 2 has received substantial media coverage and meets the notability guidelines. Just because something is purely speculational doesn't mean it is not notable. This is true of articles like World War III, and Aurora (aircraft). Even if the undeletion of iPad 2 is not the outcome of this debate, I would still like this article to be unprotected or at least semi-protected.Marcus Qwertyus 07:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:CRYSTAL states inter alia Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. This is pretty much always going to be speculation and OR until Apple actually announces something.... The WWIII comparison is a prime example of comparing apples and pears. {excuse my humour}Spartaz Humbug! 08:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research when cited. I wish that policy were better worded. Marcus Qwertyus 08:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." I have reworded the contradiction. Marcus Qwertyus 08:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original research can include uninformed speculation too - especially if applied as fact when its clearly not verifiably accurate about the subject. If anything the article is misnamed as it would be better titled speculation about the Ipad2, since nothing is known for definite. Spartaz Humbug! 09:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uninformed speculation? Where are you getting this? Is this policy or is this your opinion? Your opinion has no weight here. Marcus Qwertyus 09:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be careful about saying that. If opinions hold no weight in arguments, then there would be no need for discussion. Everything is based on opinion; that is why people disagree on interpretation of policy and such. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and permit writing the article. WP:CRSTAL does not apply once multiple major responsible sources have thought it appropriate to run stories. (This is the same nonsense that we have done in other cases; Wikipedia seems to be increasingly adopting a 6th Pillar, WP is an encyclopedia that hides its head in the sand, and will not admit the obvious--I find it unbelievable that there is not even a section on the ipad2 in the ipad article.) . If we follow the sources on what is notable, it works in both directions: we do not decide whether something is worth talking about--we decide on the basis of what the external world thinks. It is irresponsible not to give full coverage now --we judge by what the outside world thinks. Contra what has been said above, if there is sourced speculation it is not OR any more than sourced anything else, and such is the way to interpret the CRYSTAL rule, for rules are intended to be interpreted reasonably; what the rule reasonably must prohibit is the many attempted cases of an article based entirely on irresponsible speculation or guesswork as distinct from responsible speculation. At this point we could even have a full article on the speculation which is notable in its own right quite apart from the eventual product. I would not suggest going this route if it isn't necessary as the only way to get coverage, because it wouldbe better to keep the material together with the eventual outcome in the eventually complete article. Spartaz, surely you agree that we do not follow tihe wording of a rule when it does not meet the actual situation.. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have however reverted the change in WP:NOT. Substantive changes in NOT need very wide general discussion, an that can not appropriately be done here. I am not going to tinker with basic rules to win a particular case without general consensus--and if we are going to change it, as I agree we should, we need to think what is the best wording. ) DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the original decision. I think the consensus was accurately read. However, with new information out, I see no problem with unprotection and allowing a new article to be created. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and allow recreation per DGG, but if there's no section on the Ipad 2 in the Ipad article, then creating that as a section prior to spinout is an obvious first step. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and allow recreation per DGG. There are enough secondary sources reporting on this. Just deciding content by what Apple announces, or doesn't announce, in relation to the iPad is relying too much on primary sources, which of course we try to avoid. As WP:NOR states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." --Oakshade (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse protection - We don't have separate articles for each iteration of the Kindle or other products. There's no reason to create a separate article for what is likely going to be a revision of the current model. If it were a completely different product (ie. iPod vs. iPod nano vs. iPod Touch etc.) I could understand it. But I see no need for an iPad 2 article at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have separate articles for the Kindle. The difference between iterations of a product matters less than the coverage by reliable sources. Examples:M240 machine gun vs. FN MAG, M26 Pershing vs. M46 Patton. Marcus Qwertyus 23:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If comparisons to how we handle other articles about technology items are the valued, as it seems by you, then it should be noted that we have separate articles on iPhone (original), iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3G and iPhone 4. We do this because there are markedly different form factors and functionality, as reports regarding the iPad 2 will have. --Oakshade (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made the point for me: "markedly different form factors and functionality..." which is information we don't have yet. All we have are rumor and speculation. And from what I've read, the iPad 2 will not be markedly different aside from having a camera. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Verizon is scooping up the iPad that would be markedly different. Oftentimes identical twins/clones get different article from their twin/predecessor. Sometimes they don't but iPad and iPad 2 are not conjoined at the hip. Marcus Qwertyus 05:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'endorse close. 'neutral on protection. The AfD had to be closed as a redirect, that's just a given. I'd have !voted to keep, but there you are. I don't feel the AfD close prohibits a new article down the road so I'm not sure protection is the best way to go here. I've no doubt at all we'll have this article at somepoint... Hobit (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now opposed to protection. Enough sources have been identified that this seems a clear topic for an article. That said, I believe the AfD was closed correctly given the discussion as it existed. Hobit (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and allow recreation. I think we're justifiably cautious about future products in general, as opening that door too wide would lead to all manner of undesirable activity (spam, fan speculation, NDA-breaking, industrial espionage, etc.), but the iPad is notable enough that both the teach press and mainstream media will be covering its development in detail. Wikipedia should reflect this, though we should also be especially careful about sourcing so as not to veer too far into speculation or rumour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirection and protection The AfD was closed fine as the consensus was to redirect. Anyone can make an iPad 2 section on the iPad article. There is no reason to reverse the AfD result one week later. The arguments about the coverage are unconvincing to me because they are too all speculation and many from unreliable sources. This seems to be routine Apple-rumors coverage. Unprotect the page when solid info comes out or it is not all just the same old rumors from phony photos. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with covering rumors.This article provides secondary coverage of the rumors. Marcus Qwertyus 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)::There is no problem with covering rumors.This article provides secondary coverage of the rumors. Marcus Qwertyus 20:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, there is a problem with covering these rumors, because there's really no backing behind any of them. WWIII has an article is because it's actually been something that governments have taken action on. The spirit of WP:CRYSTAL is embodied in this sentence: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." There is no point in keeping an article around on something that a. has received only routine rumor coverage in blogs, rumor sites; b. these rumors have been routinely covered, as with all Apple rumors, in a very small number of actually reliable secondary sources; c. is completely speculation. AKA, there is no hard proof that the iPad 2 is what it is. An article on it would be "The iPad 2 is the expected successor to the Apple iPad. Nothing is currently known about it, but [site X] reports [rumors], which [site Y] claims to have photos showing [purported cameras et al.]." The difference between this and the Aurora is the fact that purported government spy planes do not pop up in the news every day, while rumors about gadgets and such do. For example, here's a list of things Apple may or may not release, a prediction of a TV release, a speculative timeline x 2, and even a supposed new jailbreaking domain. None of these are more than regular old rumors and should not have Wikipedia articles. As I said before, a small "Future development" section on the main iPad article should be enough to say "nothing for sure", "widely expected to launch in April", and "photos of purported device leaked in December". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, "original research refers to material not already published by reliable sources". It is not crystalballing to report material already published by reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're now confusing WP:CRYSTAL with WP:OR. It clearly says, "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." Its certainly says something about the speculative nature of the article in that the source you mentioned is a listing of rumors when nothing have come of them. What is more important in WP:CRYSTAL, though, is that "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred," and there is no indication that the iPad 2 meets this criteria. The coverage of the iPad 2 presented does not show anything more than routine coverage of a persistent pattern of Apple rumors, almost none of which are currently of sufficiently wide interest to merit and article, something I have repeatedly said and you have repeatedly failed to address. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're now confusing Wikipedia articles with reliable sources. While Wikipedia articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate, iPad2 reliable sources that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" provide sweet, sweet material for the iPad2 Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. Because the resulting Wikipedia article is still presenting the same speculation. Unless somehow being published in USA Today makes a rumor not a rumor? But again, my point about WP:NOTNEWS and routine coverage has still not been addressed. I suppose that's because it's a valid reason in keeping the page salted for now? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well sourced speculation is fine. If the iPad2 were out today, "the subject matter would be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article" and thus meets WP:CRYSTAL quite nicely. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect and allow recreation per DGG. This is just another example of Wikipedia arrogantly trying to dictate what those outside Wikipedia should be doing: "Apple must first acknowledge it's product before it is given an article," "the iProduct hasn't been formally announced by Apple", "Apple's product naming may not be as expected". Yet, if Apple were the only ones who wrote about its iPad 2 product, we all would be screaming delete, insufficient coverage in secondary sources. Here, the reliable secondary sources have provided plenty of material for an article on the topic but because they didn't write what Wikipedia believes they should have written about, we're gonna show 'em that we are superior to them and deny an article on the topic. Yes, Wikipedia's horse has grown high, so it is even more important that we Wikipedians get off and stay off that horse and get back to the job of conveying information from reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate on how this "plenty of material" would not result in an article that is completely speculation, and how this material is more than routine news coverage of rumored Apple products, something that (if you keep up with tech blogs) pops up every several weeks? In addition, are you saying that we should be able to have articles on all such unconfirmed (which is not any criteria in itself) products that have simply popped up as "possible" in reliable sources? If so, do create an article on iPod Touch 5G and iPhone 5 per [1] [2] [3]. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3,040 news articles on the iPad 2 in the past 24 hours is not routine coverage. Each generation of iPhone traditionally releases later than the iPad so it isn't quite notable yet. Marcus Qwertyus 03:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An all of those are RS? No, most are passing mentions focusing more on competitors (Motorola just released some stuff) and tech blogs. In addition, the extra hype is due to CES. You must be very careful in saying "X hits on Google = notable". Nor is the release date anything you should be worrying about if your own argument holds true. It has coverage, right? So it doesn't matter how speculative it is, because the coverage exists? That's what you've been saying; if you can't apply it to the iPhone 5 in the same situation, I don't see how that makes sense? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect positions at Afd have misapplied policy with unsupported conclusions and the keep positions were the stronger argument. Consensus is that multiple major responsible sources have thought it appropriate to run stories on the topic. We agree that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball addresses only unverifiable speculation: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Early on, Jimmy Wales excluded sourced speculative information from removal of speculative information,[4] and Verifiability policy and CRYSTAL policy have carried that forward. In support of those policies, Wikipedia has Category:Articles containing predictions or speculation dedicated to predictions or speculation. It's not the job of Wikipedian's to hold their nose up towards the decisions of reliable sources. Moreover, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument. Repeating "it's Crystal" at AfD is not an argument, it is a conclusion, and there is no basis to give that unsupported conclusion weight as an argument, particularly since they confused Wikipedia speculation with Wikipedia articles about notable, verifable speculation. On the last point, no one at AfD argued routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities and DRV isn't the place to bring it up for the first time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will note that Category:Articles containing predictions or speculation comes from {{crystal}}, a tag indicating a problem. The category is dedicated to listing articles that someone thinks violates WP:CRYSTAL. WP:CRYSTAL says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This can easily be discussed in the iPad article, and is more appropriate than a standalone article which states only prospects and whether development will occur. The issue I see with your last bit is, consensus was clearly to redirect the page. This DRV seems to be more about saying "No, it's now OK to recreate the article" not "the AfD was wrongly closed". At that time, there was really no alternative to closing as keep; you'll see that the few keep arguments are not very strong, either. "There is definitely enough press coverage to be notable" is very broad and does not say why the press coverage is more than routine, Terrenceandphillip's point was addressed by others, and "Articles on future events are not chrystalballing as long as they don't have original research not published by reliable sources" is what is being discussed now, here. If the AfD had been closed as "keep", that would be injecting a supervote. This discussion has been branching out to "why should be unprotect it now, just a few weeks after the AfD?" Because we've started off with the argument of "there is new coverage" and thus a new argument against that here, now. If we're to focus solely on the AfD, then should we not disregard the claim that there is now adequate coverage? No—we need consensus on the appropriateness of restarting the article. Actually I'm not even sure why this is at DRV right now; I thought these were handled by talk page consensus as obviously the redirect decision would be reversed when the arguments of the AfD were no longer valid to a new article (which I see no one has started). So to clarify, and I've sort of been rambling, a. If we focus solely on the AfD decision, then the redirect consensus is appropriate; b. Anyone can write about the iPad 2 in the iPad article now; c. If someone wants to submit an actual iPad 2 draft for discussion at Talk:iPad or Talk:iPad 2, and consensus is that the CRYSTAL issues raised at the AfD have been resolved, etc. it should be OK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD redirect positions did not rebut the fact that readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source so the Wikipedia material is Wikipedia verifiable per Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball addresses only unverifiable speculation: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." Since the AfD redirect positions omitted Whikpedia's application of "unverifiable" from the crystal/speculation analysis and focused on truth, their position was not ground in NOT policy and the article should be unprotect and recreation allowed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse protection per Fetchcomms. I'll reiterate my argument from the original discussion. The topic is inherently unverifiable. We don't provide encyclopedic coverage of speculation because you must conduct original research to evaluate the so-called secondary sources. (In fact they're primary sources if they're pure speculation.) That's why WP:CRYSTALBALL: speculation doesn't get encyclopedic coverage, even if it's printed in what are normally reliable sources. The HuffPo article is a reliable secondary source covering reliable primary sources. Sources like that should be cited in a section at iPad, until the content outgrows that section. --Pnm (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: iPad (original) appears to be a redundant content fork. The edit summary says "greenlit at DR." I don't get it. --Pnm (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the center of the earth is a molten mass of magma is also inherently unverifiable. Now, have you seen anyone running around removing the speculation? It is Wikipedia's job to be a perfect mirror of reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus 09:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's really true, we've been speculating about it since the 18th century. Why not write a great, referenced summary of the iPad 2 speculation at Wikinews? It could probably meet WP:ELYES. --Pnm (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find that extremely misleading, Marcus—if Wikipedia is to be a perfect mirror of reliable sources, the threshold for inclusion would be one reliable source, not significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition, if that is so, why did you state above that every "generation of iPhone traditionally releases later than the iPad so it isn't quite notable yet" even though the iPhone 5 has, as I demonstrated above, also been covered in independent sources and publications? It seems like you're contradicting yourself now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A):It is create protected
B):I haven't got the time or energy to deal with another AfD and subsequent deletion review. Marcus Qwertyus 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you do think it deserves an article? And you thus retract your earlier statement that it is not yet notable? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline but yeah, I think so. Same could be said for the Verizon iPhone which has every year garnered speculation and this year appears to be true. Marcus Qwertyus 05:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying; I would disagree but that's for another discussion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect and protection per WP:CHILL. Consensus was clear at the AfD. Protection is required so that the Apple fanboys don't restore the article and we find ourselves right back here again in a few weeks. SnottyWong chatter 23:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral A quick search reveals reports from both the Christian Science Monitor and PC World regarding the rollout of the iPad2. While you can't get too much more reliable than those outlets, they don't have enough meat regarding features just yet. Would like to see more before committing to unprotection. Blueboy96 05:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect: Something does not need to be real to be notable. There is plenty of reliable sources discussing this topic, meaning it clearly meets our wp:GNG. 174.20.92.169 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Transformers: Timelines (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article got deleted immediately as I was adding a great new source. Tomart's Action Figure Digest, No. 164 did a cover story on the 2008 Transformers Timelines toy set. You can see the cover here: http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/conventions-15/botcon-2008-shattered-glass-box-art-revealed-164648/ Mathewignash (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm amazed that after this article was deleted at AfD twice in quick succession, you want to DRV this again because you've found a new source in the form of a story in Tomart's Action Figure Digest.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can be a more notable source for a toy line than a cover story in a toy magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathewignash (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse deletion and I will WP:SALT to prevent this continuing refusal to accept consensus. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEADHORSE - Running back here with every new potential source is seldom useful and can be counterproductive at some point this becomes disruptive and that never ends well. It's hard to tell from the link you've got what sort of coverage is included, but hoping that each and every source discovered will push us over the line is not helpful. If you have that magaizine (or can get hold of a copy) and it provides indepth coverage, then that with any other source you find should be used to work on a userspace draft, only when that is up to a good standard should it be bought back here. At the moment you risk getting this listed at WP:DEEPER --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's acceptable. I ordered that magazine on ebay last night. If someone wants to restore the article to my userspace, I will add it and any others I can find. I won't bother with asking to get it restored until I can find a half dozen notable third party sources that pass as notable to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. In the meantime can we have Transformers: Timelines simply redirect to the Transformers toy line page? Is this acceptable? Mathewignash (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is, however, a reasonable and appropriate request that we should consider favourably.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with that. Install the redirect and restore the page to my userspace, and you can close this request, as I get this and more sources approved on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Mathewignash (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tomart's Action Figure Digest" looks more like a simple pricing guide, like what I used to buy when I wanted to see how much my Fleer Don Mattingly rookie card was worth, back in the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)
  • Just to be clear the reliable source noticeboard doesn't approve sources, they'll give an opinion as to if they are reliable but that's not approving them. A source which is reliable also may not meet the other requirements. It's a good start to run it past the noticeboard, but don't take it as an approval. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but when I get a half dozen that they approve, I'd think it would be legitimate to ask that the article be considered for them. People can still say no then. Mathewignash (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and seriously consider salting. Consensus has twice been to delete the article, within the space of a few weeks. 22:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyk (talk • contribs)
  • I already said I'd accept a redirect while I get more sources. No need to salt it. If it does get more sources in the future, then there should be no bias against giving it an article. Mathewignash (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of minor Transformers comics may be a good redirect destination. The comics do seem minor, since it's an annual series. By the way, I'm not quite sure how many sources could actually work for a TF Timelines article. This for example can't work to prove that a Shattered Glass Cyclonus was released as part of Timelines, since it doesn't use the word Timelines. A lot of sources didn't use the word Timelines, so I don't think they would have worked. If you have one source that says "BotCon toys from 2005 onward are part of Timelines" and another that says "the BotCon 2010 set was called Generation Two: Redux", an article cannot use those to say that Generation Two: Redux is a Timelines set. That would fall under the ratchets are gadgets kind of original research. So yeah, any source that doesn't use the word "Timelines" might not work for a Transformers: Timelines article. NotARealWord (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem, those sources put in the article still weren't really usable. The toy packagin says "Timelines", but not the sources you used. This is not about wether or not it' verifiable which toys are part of Timelines, it's about how it cannot be verified with the references you used. NotARealWord (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes primary sources can be used for non-controversial facts such as this. WP:NOR - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." the packaging describing it as part of the timelines series would easily fall into that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have explained this to NotARealWord many times, he seems to hold steadfast to the belief that all sources in an article MUST be "reliable third party sources", and anything else is to be ignored and deleted. I have yet to convince him there is a difference between a source used to prove a subject is notable and a source simply used to prove a statement on that page. Many simple statements on a Wikipedia page are from primary sources and are completely acceptable. It's a simple provable fact which toys are "Timelines" toys from primary sources. Once we know which ones are Timelines toys all the "reliable third party" reviews of those toys are indeed reviews of Timelines. Mathewignash (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you accuse me of something. Where have I ever shown "steadfast to the belief that all sources in an article MUST be "reliable third party sources""? Earlier, you accuse me of hatin Timelines itself. NotARealWord (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, No,they are reviews of the individual toys still, they aren't reviews of the collective. We'd need to be careful about the weighting we give as general interest in the collective. This really depends on how the article is written and structured titling it Timelines and covering multiple toys which each have a few good references should be fine, using a few good references about a particular toy and extrapolating that to coverage of the whole series is probably taking it too far. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and topic ban Mathewignash next time he puts Transformers stuff up for DRV. Enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, it's much worse than just that. His shenanigans have actually made TF fans think less of wikipedia as a reliable information source, see here for an example. Myself and a number of others have tried being patient with him, even after his sockpuppet incident, but if anything he's gotten worse. Let's face it, he's been here since January 2006, if he hasn't figured out what Wikipedia is all about in 5 YEARS there's no reason in particular to imagine the next week or so will be any different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "him", you mean Mathewignash, right? NotARealWord (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's not a whole lot of ambiguity there: "[Wikipedia is] a place for Matthew Ignash to spread his fanon and inane assumptions... It's why Teletraan I is such a better source for TF information." Yikes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to read that same page the next user says "In all fairness, that crap was from The Matrix Prime . —Interrobang 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)". This page was making a complaint about an edit The Matrix Prime made, and mistook me for making it! Now you are using it as proof that I am disrupting wikipedia? I'm the one who removed the edit The Matrix Prime made that was disruptive.Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, man. It's not about one edit or even one article, nor is it about what toy robot is a clone of what other toy robot. It's a pattern of poor behaviour on your part that stretches back half a decade. You've been on Wikipedia longer than a number of admins and arbitrators and yet still like to pretend you have no idea what goes in an encyclopedia or what a reliable source is. Again: enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is about who edited what if you are going to point to a post where it says I'm disruptive, and in that post the editor MISTOOK someone else for me! I'm now responsible for other people's disruptions? Also, I'm a bit disappointed in you using tfwiki as a SOURCE. You should know better. Mathewignash (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose you getting banned from the Transformers Wikia was yet another tragic case of mistaken identity then? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a case of a feud between me and the guy who owns it. I didn't realize good standing on every fan wiki was a requirement for editing Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're ban over there is a result from stuff you did over at this wiki. (The feud was against this guy, in case anybody's wondering).
Yes, David says he blocked me for disagreeing with his posts on Wikipedia, mostly on formatting rules like calling Unicron a Decepticon. Where is the Wilipedia rule against disagreeing with David again? Anyways, he went out and started his own wiki so he could make his own article about Unicron. and on it he currently has it formatted the way I wanted, because I was right and his own members put it that way. Funny huh? According to his own admins he's a jerk who likes to ban people for disagreeing with him (I am not the only one!), but they put up with him because he owns the server that tfwiki runs on.Mathewignash (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignash's talk page on TFWiki, in case anybody wants to know more about that issue.
I could comment further on wether or not David Willis is "a jerk who likes to ban people for disagreeing with him" as Ignash mentioned, but thi is getting too off-topic. NotARealWord (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, salt, and give the nominator homework of reading WP:RS fully. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not overreact. We have had over a HUNDRED Transformers articles get deleted. I've tried to save maybe 4 with deletion reviews. I'm happy with the suggestion NotARealWorld suggested of redirecting it to List of minor Transformers comics. Mathewignash (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_2&oldid=1088118959"