Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Trotters

Time Trotters

Delete non notable unencyclopedic minor web series. WP:NN. WP:WEB probably also applies. Strothra 20:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Trotters is a noteable series due to its very nature as a successful web series. Original internet programming outside of podcasts and video blogging is still extremely rare, and while there are a few other examples such as Red vs Blue, such examples are going to be very far and few between. Time Trotters sold out of its first two DVD pressings -- an event unprecedented for a commercially sold web series -- and the only reason it isn't still available today is that the packaging, like everything else, was assembled by the GameSpot staff during their off-hours and the process was simply too time-consuming to keep up forever.

Secondly, Time Trotters is notable because it's an entertainment sci-fi/comedy series written, produced, and distributed by a journalistic company. GameSpot is one of, if not the premiere videogaming website on the internet, scoring literally millions of hits every day from people who turn to it for news, reviews, and media on games for all platforms. It is not an entertainment company, yet in this case the staff was so enthusiastic about lampooning their own profession that they volunteered to spend their free time before and after work creating a fictional series complete with its own story arcs and fictional canon. An entertainment company like ABC or NBC will drop failed series all the time as a natural part of its business. If Emily's Reasons Why Not or The Will are noteworthy enough to deserve their own Wikipedia articles because they were cancelled after only a single episode, surely a successful web series like Time Trotters which is produced by a non-entertainment company is unique enough to warrant a similar consideration.

Finally, the Time Trotters article should remain in place for many of the reasons listed in the "Arguments Against Deleting Articles for Non-Notability" in WP:NN, most specifically the section that points out "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper." It's already been argued that Time Trotters is hardly obscure to all of the fans who flooded GameSpot's message boards to critique the latest new episode during the series run, or to the hundreds of people who enjoyed the series well enough to purchase it on DVD, but it should also be stated that the Wikipedia article is both very detailed and determinedly objective. There is no libel here to offend anyone. Yes, the series did poke fun at some of the gaming industry's most notorious and obscure failures, but those criticisms are not reflected in the article itself and Wikipedia itself has articles about some of the show's targets including Link: The Faces of Evil and DJ Boy.

In summary, Time Trotters deserves to remain a part of the Wikipedia archives because it's a singular example of a successful web series born from an unlikely source which, at its absolute worst, is not troubling anyone. I hope the community will allow the record of this unique show to stand. PattonPending 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I begin after that long essay. First, WP:NN is an essay, not policy, of Wikipedia. Also, more people saw Emily's Reasons Why Not's one episode than the total number of people who bought the DVD of Time Trotters - or visited the web site that supplied it (as opposed to the total number of hits). So with that in mind, let's check out WP:WEB:

Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

This criterion excludes:

o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.

o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.

3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.

While GameSpot.com clearly meets the notability criteria (many references in other media over the years), the Time Trotters article does not show any indication of #1, #2, or #3 above. Thus, unless the article meets WP:WEB upon a fast rewriting, I must urge a ~~redirect~~ merge to GameSpot, the article of the source of the programming. B.Wind 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B.Wind, your user page advances a policy that all broadcast TV series should have their own Wikipedia article regardless of their success. I don't think I understand the notion that Time Trotters would deserve an entry if CBS had aired it in the form of program padding to fill unsold commercial time at 2:00am, but because it was produced as streaming video content on a globally recognized game review site, it does not.

What is it specifically that Emily's Reasons Reasons Why Not offers in the way of encyclopedic value that Time Trotters does not? PattonPending 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are asking about notability. Besides being seen by about 6.2 million viewers and getting international coverage in media independent of the network airing Emily's Reasons...? How many copies of the DVD were sold, and what media have written articles about or broadcast news articles about Time Trotters? And did CBS broadcast it nationally at any one time, as you posited?

In addition, Emily's Reasons... makes the grade because it is one of a mere handful of series broadcast on a major television network that was canceled after only one episode. I'd hate to tell you, Patton, that far more people in North America, Europe, and Australia are interested in broadcasting than in computer media. Thus even one-episode series (like Turn-On) have enough notability if they were available to over 98 percent of the population in the first place. But keep on fighting. If you've read my user page, you also have read that the harder the fight (instead of fixing the problem in the first place), the greater the justification for deletion. B.Wind 22:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read that section of your user page. It strikes me as being akin to declaring that the harder a criminal defendant fights for his exoneration, the more likely that a jury should declare him guilty because "he doesn't respect the integrity of the system." You intimate that I should focus instead on "fixing the problem in the first place," yet the problem appears to be that prominent availability on one of the internet's most heavily trafficked game review sites is being deemed insufficient exposure for the series to qualify as "notable." It seems to me that the only conceivable "fix" for this problem is to try and make the case that poorly rated and swiftly cancelled TV shows are not necessarily of greater significance than popular web series.

Given the choice to have Time Trotters deleted because I tried too hard to make a case for its inclusion or because I didn't bother to show up and make a case at all, I'll take the former.

I do not have hard numbers to share about how many DVD sets were sold, besides to say "several hundred." I also do not know of any independent media outlets who wrote about the series; the sites most likely to do so are in direct competition with GameSpot for readership which makes such reports very unlikely. If I'm successful at finding any additional information about the series I would certainly add it to the article. That's whole point of Wikipedia: a living, breathing reference which can rapidly grow and adapt as new information is discovered.

No, I'm not aware that CBS ever aired any episodes of Time Trotters. The point I was trying to make was that appearance on broadcast television, regardless of how many people see it or how successful it is, seems like a strange standard to have to meet.

Finally, I find it interesting that you would suggest that Turn-On meets the criteria for inclusion because it was "available to over 98 percent of the population". What percentage of the American population currently has internet access? How about the European population or the Australian population? I daresay that more people have access to Time Trotters today than had access to Turn-On during it's sole airing, and I should think that its currency would make it all the more relevant.

Also, I do not grasp the benefit to Wikipedia in deleting the Time Trotters article. This is non-offensive, non-inflamatory, non-advertisement material which doesn't appear to undermine this site's credibiity in any way; and I should think the goal would be establish as thorough of an encyclopedic reference as possible. PattonPending 22:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]