The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As some of the keeps have now been blocked as sockpuppets, those are now discounted. As such, the consensus becomes "delete" and so I am re-closing this as such. If you feel that this is unwarranted, please feel free to take this to Deletion Review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 no consensus. There is no clearcut consensus here, however there is no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Timelines[edit]

Transformers: Timelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-mainstream sub-franchise within Transformers with nothing to indicate notability. I myself haven't found anything that does indicate notability. All of the fiction and action figures/merchandise were limited releases, so it wouldn't be surprising if this truly is non-notable. NotARealWord (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking in independent reliable sources and using YouTube clips as evidence is not gonna cut the mustard. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I'm currently adding sources to the article, and trimming the fat then, this article should become acceptable. Mathewignash (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't often !vote delete, but this really is non-notable. The only reliable source I found is a review of one of the toys. No apparent merge or redirect target. ----Divebomb is not British 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Mathewignash seems to have improved the article quite a lot. If there are issues with this, they are fixable. ----Divebomb is not British 16:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So with additional sources like I just added, does this article seem worth saving? Mathewignash (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As there is now less original research and many third party sources, the rational for your vote is invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The article has yet to show how it is notable in the real world. As it stands now, it's merely a repository of links about the figures and an exposition of all possible details instead of a summary of accepted knowledge. As it is right now, it still deserves to be deleted. Still, it has shown improvement since the original nomination, so perhaps it could still be kept, but not as it is right now. It still needs to be re-written to show its real-world impact beyond release dates, or at least show the potential to improve to show that notability in the future. Jfgslo (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It's the official line of Fun Publications, a company who is licensed by Hasbro to make Transformers. The comic books were released in the mainstream through normal comic book distruibutors, so the arguement in the nomination that it had "limited release" only is invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Really, are they distributed through general comic book retail? My search on Amazon.com didn't find any f them on retail, only user-generated sales of the comics. NotARealWord (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wrote a lot of that page a long time ago when putting lists of toy lines was in style. If you check the history though I recently started to re-write it as a a comic book article, based on the comic. It is a ongoing comic book with 7 issues released through mainstream distributors. We maybe should remove the toy list, and make the article about the comic book. Mathewignash (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mathewignash clearly has little regard for what counts as reliable sources WP:RS. I hardly call [1], [2],[3],[4] reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Clearly you don't know what an external link is. That youtube post is by the company that makes the comic, it is a PRIMARY source, not one used to prove notability. Same with the PDFs. They are the actual stories given away free by Fun Publications as promotions. We have agreed in the Transformers Project that Ben Yee's is an extablished and recognized expert on toy and fiction review, so his site DOES help establish the page. Mathewignash (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would Benson Yee realy count as third-party? He's a toy expert, but BWTF is primarily about Transfomers. Plus, he's listed as one of the TF Timelines writers. Also, one of the websites cited as sources, Fallen empire toys, seems to be hosted on Wordpress, so, probably not reliable. Another website, Tomopop, seems to be user-generated, so, not very useful for notability. NotARealWord (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, content on OAFE seems to be posted/written pseudonymously, that doesn't make it seem like a reliable source. NotARealWord (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been pointed out to me that the comment I made in response to an inquiry that Mathewignash did, would be of some use in this AfD since it addresses the points that I believe need to be changed in order to modify my opinion from "strong delete" to "keep". This is my full comment:
"In reply to the question that you made on my talk page on November 28, 2010, the thing needed to make me change my vote is to read at least two references from third-party sources that are from reputable publications/reviewers that specifically address Transformers: Timelines, not a single toy or individual products, the Timelines toy line or the comic books. That is the only way to prove that an article like this can stand alone in Wikipedia. Read WP:GNG for specifics about this.
About the recent references that you added, please note that many of them do not talk about Timelines but about specific toys that are part of the toy line, so the ones that are notable are the toys, not the Timelines series.
Bear in mind that the references to show notability must show "significant coverage", which none of the current ones do, at least not about Timelines, and the sources cannot be in any way affiliated to the Transformers franchise, even if they are not officially endorsed by the producing companies. The sources to show notability must not be Transformers dedicated websites ("independent of the subject.")
As the article stands right now, it fills the criteria of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." All those paragraphs outside of the intro are completely unencyclopedic and unjustified with the current sources. The article must not be written as a timeline because that has no relevance if there is no real-world notability.
If there are reviews about the comic books, the article should talk about the comic books, not the toys. Almost all of the article is written as a synthesis of published material that advances a position. The article should change from a toys perspective to a comic book perspective because if the comic books are minor or non-notable, the Supercbbox is unnecessary. Essentially, everything about years and figures is not encyclopedic material unless there are at least two sources that mention all of them in single reviews that are not related to the individual toys.
These sources are not acceptable to show notability because they are not independent of the subject:
  • www.transformersclub.com
  • www.bwtf.com
  • Hasbro Transformers Collectors Club magazine
These might be, but not as they are now:
  • comicnewsi.com (it's a preview, not a full review, and the review is useless if the cite does not have the full name of the reviewer or if the person is not considered as a reputable reviewer by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics.)
  • tomopop.com (although the article is well identified and the website does have reviews, the reviews are about specific figures not the toy line.)
  • fallenempiretoys.com (once again specific toy reviews, not a review of the toy line itself.)
  • oafe.net (same as above.)
  • bsckids.com (a preview, not a full review.)
While I have no doubt that the Transformers toy line series are notable as a whole, it does not need unnecessary content forks like this article. The Transformers: Timelines comic may have some notability to stand on its own, but I doubt that the derivative toy lines themselves merit more than a mention in the Transformers (toy line) article. For a reference of what I would expect from an article about Transformers: Timelines toy line, check Play-Doh or Sindy and notice the tone used to emphasize the real-world notability of the toys, something that Transformers: Timelines doesn't have at all right now.
If you manage to find at least two reviews (no product reviews) that are not about the individual toys but about the whole Transformers: Timelines toy line and that are from publications completely independent of Transformers, or if the focus of the article is about the comic books and meets the criteria of WP:CMC, then I will not object about keeping the article. As it is right now, there is very little that merits to be kept." Jfgslo (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're making the Comics WikiProject out to be some vast entity that has meaning outside Wikipedia. It doesn't. ----Divebomb is not British 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Timelines is a fanclub related line, not a mass market one. It is very unlikely that any evidence of notability outside of the fandom can be found. --Khajidha (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just added several citations from the book "Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future" by Erin Brereton. It's an unauthorized (unlicensed) book that talks about the Transformers history up to 2006 (when it was published), and it talks about the timelines toys and Fun Publications on several pages. So that may be helpful in establishing notability by a third party source. Mathewignash (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you (or anybody else) should remove the non-reliable sources that I pointed out earlier. NotARealWord (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it seems that anyone can post on Tomopop (another website cited) if they sign up. Doesn't look very reliable that way. NotARealWord (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is it Wikipedia's policy to remove such links? Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, removing references to non-reliable sources? Would it possibly be anything other than YES? NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - also, regarding the fiction's distribution, the BotCon comics are only 6 issues. The bulk of the fiction is prose stories only available to logged-in members on the fan club website. NotARealWord (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is your point? That you have to pay to read the stories? The main comic book is distriputed like any other comic. The "magazine" requires a subscription, also, not unusual. Several of the online stories are free to anyone (and some magazine back issues), but with a subscription you get access to the web site with online stories. I don't recall a requirement that stories be available "free" to be mentioned on Wikipedia! The Fantastic Four comic book is SOLD, not given away. How is the way it's sold relivant? Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, TF Timelines doesn't seem like it even tries to be mainstream like other TF franchises. It's not the price, it's the stories themselves.
  • Comment - I'll have to remember that arguement. You can delete an article on fiction on wikipedia because the story isn't trying to be "mainstream" enough. Mathewignash (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "not trying to be mainstream" I mean, is not meant to appeal to people who aren' already fans of transformers, more into it than the general target group the rest of transformers is aimed at. Would calling the entirety of timelines fancruft be unfair? Was it ever meant to be anything beyond that? NotARealWord (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 6 annual issues ongoing, plus a bi-monthly comic-sized magazine with fiction in every issue. 36 issues of that out. Plus 2 prose stories open to the public to read, and another dozen that you have to pay for, plus a half dozen publically performed voice plays actual animation voice actors doing their character's voices... and a couple computer animated videos. More than 6 issues of comic. Mathewignash (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine isn't actually called Timelines. There are only 6 timelines comic books. Everyhing else are not comic books and/or not timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So are you saying the enture article might be better suited by calling it something like "Fun Publication"? to over all their work or that we need a seperate article for the magazine? Anyways I counted and it's 6 annual comic books called "Timelines" plus the special edition one released for the Nightbeat action figure, thats 7, plus the 15 prose fiction stories on their web site, that's 22. Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way is good (rename or split) if this AfD is closed as "keep" (which I'm not hoping for). NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this user Ultrablastic123 seems to have been a registered editor for all of a week, and has done little editing except vote in deletion nominations. Should we be worried about this being another sock puppet attack, like the last 5 sock puppets who came in voting to delete Transformers articles? Mathewignash (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if there's anything wrong with you filing a Sockpuppet investigation or something. NotARealWord (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse me, but I am simply trying to help improve and clean wikipedia of articles which I think dont match up to stanards, I have never had anything to do with sockpuppeting or ever will. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anyone who does this many edits to AFDs within a short time of their registration is a likely sock. Take 'im to SPI. (Please don't be offended. The Transformers WikiProject has been getting swarmed with socks recently, and we can't be too careful.) ----Divebomb is not British 09:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable as per 22 refs --84.193.193.10 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A significant portion of those 22 refs are primary sources. Third-party sources are required to establish notability. NotARealWord (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Twenty two reliable sources have weighed in on the merits of this topic. Movadito (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC) User has been indeffed as sockpuppet of banned user Wiki brah. ----Divebomb is not British 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fanboy sites and minor comic reviews are not sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Do you have a specific complaint about a citation not being valid? I'd expect reviews on an independent comic to come from comic book review sites, but they are valid reviews from valid sources. Mathewignash (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a fundamentalist inclusionist could call the sources reliable I mean this [5] a violation of WP:YOUTUBE and sites like [6] are fansites hardly independent of the site. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Will you knock it off? Mathewignash has explained this above. The YouTube video is a primary source and BWTF is the website of Benson Yee, an established expert in the field and one of the authors. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ----Divebomb is not British 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dwanyewest, Did you even read the rule you sent me to? it said "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page" - It is a link to the primary source. Learn the rules before you start quoting them please. Mathewignash (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed those YouTube links are reliable, but they do not establish notability. Same goes for BWTF.com. Benson Yee is even listed as a writer for this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding that book cited (Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future), I imagine there wouldn't be much Timelines stuff it could have covered. Fun Publications at that point didn't even have their own continuities yet The Classics, Shattered Glass and TransTech continuities had their fiction premieres later. Plus, all the website stories were released from 2007 onward. NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future talked about the 2005 and 2006 Botcon, it's toys and fiction. Ben Yee helped write ONE issue of the comic back in 2005. This doesn't discount ALL the toy reviews since then. Mathewignash (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, he was involved in about five stories. Since he did write some Timelines stuff, that means he isn't entirely unaffiliated with TF Timelines. Also, stuff released at BotCon (from 2005 onward) counts as Timelines. Information on the event itself goes in the convention's own article.

NotARealWord (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was the writer of this comic book, of course I'm going to give it a positive review, I'm automatically biased.

— BWTF

NotARealWord (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very much of the article is a toy list. It's been pointed out on the project talk page that that kind of stuff isn't encyclopedic or just unnecessary for character articles. (see here and more of the talk page archives.) Perhaps the same might apply for other articles like this one? NotARealWord (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the toy list should be reworked into something that is character list first, toy list second. ----Divebomb is not British 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was decided to not specifically mention any toys for the article on BotCon. i find that any individual toy is usually fancruft/trivia. A character list may be tricky since story-wise, Timelines is not one story but a bunch of stories which sometimes have connections with each other.

"A topic should have an article if a non-stub article can be written without resorting to trivia, unverifiable material, or unencylopedic material."

— User:Starblind/Inclusion

Whoever is gonna close this discussion should ponder this: Does the article demonstrate potential to be a non-stub without resorting to fancruft and/or trivia? Also, Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future does seem to mention the collector's club, but there couldn't be much coverage since Fun Publications only started running the club the year before that book was published, and thus they have not yet produced much stuff to give coverage to.. Using the "From inside the book" search function, it seems that the word Timelines does not actually appear inside the book. NotARealWord (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Timelines an currently ongoing comic book with new issues and stories coming out every few months the answer to whether this article has potential for growth is YES! No, they don't use the word "timelines" in the book you mention, just calling them Botcon/club toys and comics. Using shorthand for a toy line name doesn't exclude them as a source of a review by a third party. The book does picture and review the Timelines toys from the first 2 years of the line. It even went on about how popular the toy of Landquake was. Mathewignash (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the potential I was asking for. You're comment is suggesting that "it (the article) won't be mostly trivia after a few more stories are released." As in there isn't yet enough non-trivial information to write an article. Instead of "There is a lot of non-trivial information". NotARealWord (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, not sure if the popularity of the Landquake toy really mattered back when it was first released. It was given away to people who joined the club and subscribed to the magazine, so they didn't have much choice wether or not to get the toy. NotARealWord (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think Timelines is entirely fancruft.

    This is a comic for a convention so it plays solely to those fans (...) this was done to have fun with and strictly for fellow Transformers fans. (...) If your not a Transformers fan, you're not going to like this comic at all so don't bother.

    — Review by BW Media
    . NotARealWord (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My goodness, a comic that is written for it's fans! That's unheard of? Is the Fantastic Four is written for people who don't like it? Mathewignash (talk)
  • As in Exclusively and only for it's fans. There's a difference between not hating something and being a fan of it. Similarly, someone who goes to a toy store looking for something interesting and buys Transformers is different from someone who hunts down a specific Transformers figure on various stores and auctions to give their collection a since of "completeness". Timelines is aimed towards people like the latter. The stuff is distributed through what is called "Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club. As in people who are really into Transformers instead of people who simply enjoy it. NotARealWord (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point is, it's fancrut, as in, you wouldn't care about it if you weren't a fan. An article generally should not rely mainly on fancruft and this is meant to be fancruft. More so than Kamen Rider Decade, most likely. Timelines can't possibly introduce anybody to it's parent franchise (unlike Decade, I guess) . Also, none of the non-primary sources fix the issue addressed by Jfgslo, being that they're not about Timelines overall, just individual issues. I don't se anything in the sources that actually seem like "extensive coverage" of Timelines itself. or example, that nytimes source is mainly about the convention, not the stuff released there. Like that book cited, it appears that doesn't even contain the word "timelines". NotARealWord (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, THIS is not quite a reliable source. It says "Fun Publications has organized BotCon since 1994". They only organized since 2005. Plus, it's mainly about the convention. NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite reliable. It's a very short source, so the mistake stands out quite a bit. NotARealWord (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This stuff is aimed at a really specific niche. Not one one based on genre or taste like sci-fi fans, giant robot fans or super hero fans, but more specific: Transformers fans. Would you expect notability from something made specifically for it's own fans, instead of people who enjoy things of its genre? Notice that review I quoted was for one of the comics that are available through general release. So the club-exclusive stories would be even more fancruft-y. NotARealWord (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's put this "fancruft" arguement to bed. - NotARealWord has managed to call this page "Fancruft" about 6 times in his various opinions. I would like to point him to WP:ITSCRUFT "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted... Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." This comic book is a licensed media put out by Fun Publications, who does OTHER things besides Transformers. It's written by professional writers, illustrated by professional artists, and distributed through Diamond Distributors. You can buy it at the local comic book store. You can buy advertising space in the book, it's completely professional. Nothing NARW has said seems to back his claims that it's a "fancruft" besides that he just doesn't seem to like the stories. That's his opinion, and not really a valid arguement for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm calling it fancruft because that's what it's meant to be Fancruft is something that only matters to it's fans. Timelines has got to fall under that. And why do you think I don't like Timelines anyway? Check it's edit history on TV Tropes [7]. There's gotta be something terribly wrong if a great deal of the writing about it there was by somebody who hates it.

Because cruft is a real problem, efforts to identify cruft should be taken in good faith.

— Wikipedia:Discussing cruft
NotARealWord (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice that:
  1. None of the non-primary sources discuss the fan club stories, which make up a great deal of Timelines media
  2. The lack of the word "timelines" in sources
  3. (Read following quote)

    Since the original comic is (so far) the only story available outside the fanclub, not only is it the only part of the universe most people know, but many folks also don't even know there were more stories.

    — TV Tropes entry on, Shattered Glass (emphasis was added by me)

Seems like people don't really discuss/write about timelines as it's own topic outside of the TF community. BotCon toys and media are discussed as a subtopic of BotCon, and transformersclub.com stories don't appear to have 'any coverage. So yeah, this does seem like people just don't care about this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The link you provided was about removing "cruft" in articles. I'm arguing against you calling the Transformers: Timelines comics THEMSELVES "Cruft". If the article itself needs cleanup, please contribute to it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - tvtropes.com isn't really a reliable source, particularly since it seems to be edited by you, and you are using it to prove your own point! You could make it say anything. You would never allow me to use it to prove this article's notability, and likewise, you can't use it to disprove notability. Anyways, the question here is NOT whether fans consider it a part of BOTCON, the question here is whether this article has proven itself notable. We have reliable third party sources enough to prove that. Mathewignash (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way,it's tvtropes.org, not .com. And actually, that quote on TV Tropes wasn't by me. I wrote the Timelines page, but didn't do much on the Shattered Glass page. Even if it was, quoting our own writing isn't disallowed (WP:SELFQUOTE, for example). Are you suggesting that the quote is incorrect and that people generally do know about the transformersclub.com stories? The seeming lack of coverage regarding the transformersclub.com stories would suggest that the quote is corret. Also, as mentioned in the review I quoted, this stuff has absolutely no appeal to people who aren't fans. With "regular" TF media, there would be a significant number of casual viewers/readers who would give it a try even if they're terribly unfamiliar with TF. The same cannot be said with Timelines. It's designed to be of interest only towards fans. Stuff that's of pretty much no interest outside a portion of the fanbase is fancrut, and that's the point of Timelines. That's what I mean by "it's fancruft". They don't hope to get any people who aren't already fans to be interested in this stuff. So, it's meant to be fancruft. De-crufting this article is not possible. I think that's what Khajidha meant by "Timelines is a fanclub related line, not a mass market one". As pointed out by Jfsglo, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of TF Timelines as a whole. No reviews of a whole set of toys, or a group of stories. The "no extensive overage" thing is the main issue in a deletion debate. You could say that the Watchmen movie was fancruft, but it did receive significant coverage and criticism for being overly loyal to it's source and having no appeal to non-fans. I reiterate that so far, there seems to be no coverage whatsoever on the transformersclub.com stories. So yeah, not really enough third party sources.At least not "extensive" ones. And no, it's not wether or not people consider as part of BotCon, it's just that only the parts of Timelines overlapping with BotCon seem to get coverage. No extensive coverage on Timelines itself. NotARealWord (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable, and poorly referenced piece of OR/cruft. This amounts to mostly non-prose WP:PLOT and is more suited to a fansite such as Wankia, er, Wikia.com. Jack Merridew 22:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I Don't see how you can call this mostly PLOT when no issue of the story is more than a single sentence of summary. Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RECEPTION - As was suggested by the constructive criticism for this page I started a section for the reception of the comic. Mathewignash (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section is completely lacking sources. Plus it only serves to prove my point. "the stories play directly to the fans" imply that they are of absolutely no interest towards non-fans, or at least that they're supposed to be that way. Ergo, fancruft. Plus it only mentions the annual comic books, still no coverage of the transformersclub.com prose stories. NotARealWord (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We don't need third party sources to prove plot, that can be done with primary sources, we need to it prove reception, which is what I did. The fact that something was received poorly by it's critics doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia, it just helps write the wikipedia article about it. We don't remove a movie from Wikipeida because Leonard Maltin gave it one star, we say it had bad reviews Mathewignash (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a bad review, it's one that makes it seem like fancruft. Fancruft is not uninteresting or terrible, it just means that very few people are going to be interested in it. Which is intentional on the part of Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding secondary sources and plot, the lack of plot summaries in any sources makes this seem non-notable. Notability is also an issue. Not just verifiability. NotARealWord (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, verification needed for that book source regarding the reception section. Does it say "the Timelines toyline was popular" in any way? It doesn't seem to contain the word Timelines. Also, Timelines toyline =/=BotCon toyline. Not sure if this shows I'm assuming bad faith, but I don't want an article kept because of something that wasn't actually in the source. NotARealWord (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Category