Talk:ForeverSpin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because of it's notability in certain areas. Since the release of Inception, some articles have compared the top to the totem used there. The link to the example is here: http://www.shortlist.com/news/get-your-own-perfect-spinning-top It has also been the center of some talks, since its premiere in the Canadian reality series, Dragons' Den. Similar to Shark Tank except in Canada, it is a similar premise of trying to land an investment deal from a group of wealth entrepenuers. Financial Post has covered this as well, detailing the sort-of demise of the investment itself.

The article is also presented as a could-be standalone article, not a definite. Though it has been detailed in news sources, and journalist sites, it might not be able to contest this speedy deletion. Some definite examples are Financial Post, Journal Gazette and ShortList, and it has been cited that Leonardo DiCaprio's role in The Revenant// has triggered a surge in spinning top sales because of an object made popular from Inception. The Independent has stated this through an article written here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/leonardo-dicaprios-oscar-win-for-the-revenant-triggers-surge-in-sales-for-spinning-tops-a6914271.html Even through this, it has gained popularity independently because of raising over $1.5 million from three projects on Kickstarter, and has gained a small cult following on both Twitter and Facebook, with currently 5,000+ likes on Facebook, and over 22,500+ followers on Twitter, and 1,000+ on Instagram besides. It was also popular because of it being one of the most successful projects from Canada itself.

Though more popular in Canada than in the United States, it should be on Wikipedia because of it's small following on its ever growing base. Technically relatively new since it's founding on February 2014, A24 is the same thing, being founded on 2012 and beginning in 2013 and technically being a stub-class in the Project Scale, as is this article would be. having over 33,800+ followers on Instagram, 44,700+ on Twitter, and 107,000+ likes on Facebook. Minus Facebook, both A24 and ForeverSpin have a somewhat-modest following, although had more exposure than the other. ForeverSpin is now just getting its exposure, and it's coming around sooner but at a slow pace.

Please take time and heart to judge this. --sheldon.andre (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Warning section

This is a propaganda page obviously written by this small company in Canada.

They work mainly through crowdfunding. As can be seen from the comments section of the Kickstarter and Indiegogo projects mentioned as references of the article, they consistently repeat the same pattern: they take more orders than they can manage, they don't respect their announced delivery times, they start new campaigns while they are still glued in managing the previous one (almost all the comments are complaints about late deliveries (6 months), non-answered emails, packages that never arrived. Repeatedly qualifying such campaigns as "successful" in the article is therefore a very subjective and debatable point of view.

Their tops are made of different materials and they are nice looking but they are very poor spinners compared to competitors, for mainly 3 reasons, inherent in their design:

- their center of gravity is too high → greater impact of gravity pulling them down,

- their tip is not well polished (the best tops have a ceramic or ruby ball at the tip, which has become a standard) → greater energy (and therefore angular momentum) loss via friction, more wobbling even on a smooth surface,

- they have no grip on the stem (and also, the stem is too thin) → more difficult to give them large initial angular momentum.

Additionally, some of them (magnesium) are too lightweight to have enough angular momentum (which is what keeps them upright).

END WARNING SECTION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb04:537:1400:9461:d234:967b:1f3 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To the UNSIGNED person who is trying to use this talk page as a product review page. Please stop. Thank you. -- cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Such a page should not exist

Such a page should not exist in Wikipedia. Most of the references do not satisfy the Wikipedia criteria, they are commercial webpages.

I suggest something along the above lines should be added to the article (or the article merely deleted).

I've tried to do such an addition but I've been persistently censored by someone who didn't even read the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb04:537:1400:9461:d234:967b:1f3 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear UNSIGNED person, Wikipedia is not a place to post product reviews. It is an encyclopedia of known objects and concepts in human society and the natural world. You have not been "censored." Your material was deleted because posting unsigned product reviews on a Wikipedia page is a misuse of Wikipedia resources. Please desist. Thank you. -- cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My Experience:

Order placed in Mid November as a Christmas present for my son, I tried to track the delivery but it seemed to be stuck in Canada from November 18th several emails received no response. I never discovered that it had not been delivered until I asked if he had received his present. I have since attempted several times to contact the company but all attempts have failed to elect a response.

I cannot comment on the quality of the product because I have not seen it, BUT I can comment on their customer care department - They do not have one! It seem that my $88 is lost. BEWARE BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH YOUR PURCHASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterdene (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

To the UNSIGNED commenter above: This is Wikipedia, not Yelp. Please check yourself. For the record, my daughter ordered a ForeverSpin top for my birthday and it arrived in three days from Toronto to California. It spins beautifully and i am thrilled with it. -- catherine yronwode, not logged in (i am at work), but a regular editor here. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

I am not protecting this company from criticism only from unreferenced original research. To do things properly there needs to be a controversy section withany complaints about the company referenced to reliable sources, for example a statement could be added saying the company has had complaints about non delivery, poorcustomer service etc with a reference to the complaints on kickstarter etc. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! A controversy section can only exist if there is PUBLIC and RELIABLY REFERENCED controversy. The use of this page for customer complaints is absolutely unwarranted. Wikipedia is not Yelp. Please stop misusing Wikipedia. cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Answer:

In my contributions about complaints against this company, I mentioned that the kickstarter and indiegogo links already present in the article also proved what I said. As an editor of Wikipedia, you should have modified my content in order to refer to these links with the correct Wikipedia syntax. Instead you merely deleted my content without any understandable explanation - which appears to the occasional contributor I am as mere vandalism. That's one more illustration of THE main problem of Wikipedia. But you have at least succeeded in disgusting me from making any more contribution.

As for the section about spinning times that you have also deleted, it is NOT original research, it appears in any book about spinning tops. You deleted my contribution, but you accepted the scientifically false one by Foreverspin that their base led to longer spinning times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.225.154 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If it "appears in any book about spinning tops", you ought to be able to cite one. Maproom (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's probably best not to have a WP:Criticism section. Any criticism should be integrated into the article should refer to reliable secondary sources, not references to comments on any crowdfunding campaign. These reliable secondary sources could mention the comments on the crowdfunding sites, that's fine and in that case they could be added as additional sources in some cases. But they cannot be the sole sources. Further there should be no reference to wikipedia, and it's unlikely there will be justification for a list of competitors. Heck even if the competitors were notable a list of competitors is unlikely to be acceptable. (A list of notable spinning top manufacturers in a separate article may be acceptable and most likely this article could link to that. Or in some cases a template.) As mentioned by Maproom, it's your responsibility to provide references. You can't expect others to find these "books" for you, since there's a resonable chance we don't even know them. Since you do, you are in the best place to provide them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct -- a crowdfunding campaign is NOT a reliable source anymore than an Amazon review page, a Yelp page, or a Ripoff Report page is. Please help us uphold the standards of Wikipedia. Thank you. cat yronwode (not logged in) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mild edits

I have edited this article by changing the order of paragraphs (putting products first and funding second, as the topic is not crowdfunding per se, but the tops that are manufactured), and performing mild improvements to grammar. The "multiple issues" tag was removed because the two cited issues (orphan page and lack of secondary sources) had been resolved before i even found the article. I have replied extensively to the UNSIGNED antagonistic reviewer above, and warned that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a product review site. I believe i have left both the article and this talk page in better condition than i found them and i will now return to spinning my cute little nickel top. -- catherine yronwode (not logged in, posting from work) 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The topic is not the tops, it is the company. I find it revealing and useful to know that people connected with the company, who appear to have written much of the article, are more interested in how much money they have received from investors, than in the products they sell. Maproom (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not know who wrote the article before i found it. I agree that the company is the topic, but the company produces the tops, and the tops do seem to be of more importance to the company than the initial startup investment, at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.104.17 (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1