Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robosapien: Rebooted


 * 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. Consensus is that enough sourcing exists to establish notability, as shown by changes since the nomination. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Robosapien: Rebooted

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Future films are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC) *Userfy - Per WP:NFF, there is no coverage to show filming has commenced.--Sodabottle (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added two references. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both sources clock in at four sentences each. I don't see that as "substantial coverage". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep switching as sources have been added to source the start of filming and notability has already been established by GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the NYT reference noting the status as "Production/Awaiting Release", which certainly seems to me to imply that filming is underway. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:NFF, we need it to be, "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography ...". What a status from "(one source) implies" to you is not the same as what "reliable sources confirm". There is simply too little coverage on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. as per below. none of this establishes notability, the NY TIMES "article" is created for every movie. and the second half of WP:NFF disqualifies this article at this point.  Both establishing filming is underway AND NOTABILITY is required. -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just popping in.... to say... "still keep". Harranguing those who argue keeping an article seems overly aggressive. I see more refs have been added, yet a couple of the delete !voters seem to be textwalling everyone who doesn't agree with them. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -hmm..it seems interesting how every "keep" editor avoids the subject of notability . Im wondering If I actually need to explain to veteran editors what it means...That would be scary -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep added more references indicating the film was shot and has indeed wrapped production and currently is in post-production. Also added original plot synopsis back into article which came from the film production company Crystal Sky's own website.  Crystalsky.com is currently unavailable because the site is undergoing a redesign, which began about a month ago.  The erroneous copyright violation claim indicated in the articles history stating the text came from filmofilia.com is false.  That site "borrowed" their summary from Crystal Sky as well, and even cite Crystal Sky as the source which can be found on that page just above the poster.  If I understood how to add that poster to the article page I would, since it also comes from Crsystal Sky, but not sure of the "fair use" rules. Lacinius (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've removed the copyright violation again. That the text comes from the production company does not negate their copyright on the text. If you would like to add a plot summary based on their summary, without copying the text, please do. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - From those sources, I do not see that production has wrapped. I see no indication that the "unavailable" Crystalsky.com began a redesign "about a month ago". Do you have some connection to Crystal Sky? (Incidentally, I don't read "“Robosapien: Rebooted” is scheduled to hit theaters in 2009. [source: Crystal Sky]" as saying "We copied text verbatim from that site.") - SummerPhD (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You already dismissed the /Film reference I provided that indicates the production has wrapped, because it apparently does not meet the criteria as a legitimate and reliable site. I'm sure this is probably an old argument somewhere on Wikipedia, but if /Film is not considered a reliable film site on the Internet, then no site on the Internet should be considered valid.  /Film is more than just some site at blogger.com, as most other Internet film sites often quote /Film for their own content.  I'm not sure why you brought up filmofilia.com again, which by the way apparently is a legitimate source since you used that page as the reason why you deleted the plot summary from the article for being in copyright violation and yet /Film is not legitimate, when I just pointed out that they took their summary direct from the Crystal Sky site.  Looking at the site again, do you see how the plot summary is in blue text, that's a site convention and designates what they copied verbatim from Crystal Sky.  It's the exact same text as was quoted in the article for the plot summary.  Filmofilia's own words are in grey text, and the [source: Crystal Sky] in square brackets applies to the whole article, because that is where they got all the information from, but I guess it might look a little odd since they stuck an advert in the middle of their article.  I mentioned Crystal Sky is currently unavailable and why, just as a courtesy in case someone tried to visit the site and the page would not load.  Not that any of this matters much at this point, since I have rewritten the plot summary and added that to the article... and I do understand that if there was a copyright violation, then it would have been with Crystal Sky, which is why I went ahead and rewrote the summary. Lacinius (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I originally removed the prod because there does seem to be alot of hits on a google search and I felt a prod was prob not the best way to decide this, with the hope more people would go through the large amount of search engine hits and hopefully establish notability. I accept that this is not a hoax and the movie definatly exists or at least went into production at some point. The question is.. wether it is notable or not.  Does anyone have a ref that says children all across america are awaiting the release of Robosapien: Rebooted.  The refs Ive seen so far seem to be basically  PR blurbs that the film is in production.  or local blurbs saying company B is coming to town to make a movie..  (For instance the NY times one is basically just a setup of the company supplied plot with a spot for users to vote and review when it comes out.)   Those references alone do not make it notable (maybe it would make it notable for inclusion on company B's article if company B is a notable company or the maybe directors page as a work in progress.  but not an article on its own).  Is this a sequel or something that has a following that the news is covering.   Ill change my vote if after people have added references establishing notability until then Im leaning with not notable yet.  Id also like to point out crystalsky.com was last archived by archive.org on may 1, 2008 with nothing at all for the year 2009, which is rather strange, are they still in business? an error page is not generally how a webmaster does construction.  How again, did you come by that information?-Tracer9999 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Archive.org is not an infallible service since their May 2008 archive does not even list Robosapien as an upcoming project. However, obviously the information must exist since that last archive, because numerous sites like Filmofilia and /Film would not directly cite the company website as the source for their information and initial film poster, etc.  Crstal Sky must still be in business if another of their productions Tekken was just released in Japan at the end of last month.  Similar to the Tekken film, I would say those that are anticipating the Robosapien film the most are those that are involved in the large community surrounding the Robosapien robotics line of products. Lacinius (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - archive.org usually doesn't skip years.  every other year it was updated several times.  Judging by the fact a professional company would just totally remove thier entire webpresence I would say its most likely they were slow in updating it.  slso thier email bounces:

info@crystalsky.com: 550 5.1.1 User unknown

the domains whois contact - tomc@crystal-sky.com - 550 550 No Such User Here (state 14) The site crystal-sky which they apparently own is now apparently a blog about things like "Take Care of Your Hayabusa Motorcycle Parts" " what drymouth is and how to avoid it"

as for tekken films. who is to say they did not sell the rights to the film to another production company. and the speculation of the robosapian community is not notable unless its sourced. also 16 months in postproduction seems to be quite a long time (if your jan 2009 date was right.) lastly, you seem to be dodging the question (asked twice now) of how you know the sites under construction? because it appears to be more like dead. As someone who has invested in movie production companies (not this one), I can tell you they come and go..-Tracer9999 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would suggest that you contact archive.org if you are so interested in why they have no listed updates for crystalsky.com for 2009, all the while numerous other film news websites were quite able to find the information they were seeking at the site during that time. I will assume you got the info@crystalsky.com address from that two year old archive, but it is unknown if or when they may or may not have stopped using that address.  If you are going to do a whois inquiry on a domain, then let's take a look at the whole thing:

Registrar: FastDomain Inc. Provider Name....: BlueHost.Com Provider Whois...: whois.bluehost.com Provider Homepage: http://www.bluehost.com/ Domain Name: CRYSTALSKY.COM Created on..............: 2005-08-24 07: 09: 30 GMT Expires on..............: 2014-09-06 16: 41: 06 GMT Last modified on........: 2009-12-04 09: 04: 12 GMT Registrant Info: (FAST-12870383) Crystal Sky 1901 Avenue of the Stars 605 Los Angeles California 90067 United States Phone: 1.3108430223 Fax..: Email: tomc@crystal-sky.com

Crystal Sky is not an ISP and therefore does not concern itself with hosting its own domain. The registration details are provided by FastDomain Inc. They list the address for Crystal Sky at Ste. 605, 1901 Avenue of the Stars. Obviously that is not the address of Crystal Sky's corporate office and is the address of Artists Only Management which is a sub-company of Crystal Sky, so already we are seeing a discrepancy in the information provided by FastDomain Inc. Not much point in speculating about the email contact, since that is clerical information provided, and could just as easily be a typo or whatever. The crystal-sky.com domain was setup by an entirely differnt registar from the one used by Crystal Sky, so they may or may not have anything to do with that domain. About the only point worth noting that is somehow related to this discussion, is that crystalsky.com is a valid domain until at least September, 2014.

Your speculation that Crystal Sky sold the production rights to the Tekken film is false, as you only need to watch the trailer for the film to see they are indeed the company that produced the film, which was just released a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdUrryP0eWE

The long post-production for Robosapien is because the robot is basically an all CGI character, plus they did some reshoots for the film since they wrapped in NOLA as well. I have visited the Crystal Sky site a number of times, and as I have already stated above it was around a month ago when I visited again, and noticed the site was unavailable and had been replaced by a holding page indicating that the site was under reconstruction, but I'm not sure when the holding page might have gone up. It was actually only a few days ago that the holding page was taken down and is now just returning the "403 Forbidden" error when visiting the site. Does that mean the reconstruction phase will soon be over, don't know, and it's pointless to speculate. I wish you well in your future investments. Lacinius (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ive updated my vote to delete for now. We should find out what the deal with the domain is soon as Ive advised FastDomain Inc. that the company is in violation of ICANN rules and regulations regarding maintainingg updated and verifyable contact info.  If they respond, we get an email address that hopefully they actually respond too.  If not the domain gets suspended then deleted.  The registar has advised me they will take action to comply with ICANN regulations.  Being registered till 2014 means nothing.. other then they spent $50 or so awhile back.  When you run a company.. you most certainly care about how your domain looks to the public.  ISP runs the servers.. the company keeps the pages updated and working.  You dont just take your site down for a month.. especially when you had a useable site prior. Also, none of the current references for the article even mention the website.. so Im not sure what your talking about.. The fact remains.. so far absolutly 0 evidence of notability so, as you were the creator of this page I hope you can find some refs.  I wish you well with your future reference finding. good luck.

from WP:NFF

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." ..both of these apply at this point and come up as FAIL -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added a COI tag to Lacinius's talk page due to the continued refusal to answer nagging questions about an apparent connection to the film in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for the tag and I can appreciate your lame attempt to bully an editor with your impertinence over something you call "continued refusal" to answer "nagging questions" about an "apparent connection" to the film. My only connection to the film is by way of my browser, and I answered each question as they were asked in my very next comment that followed if you cared to look, but apparently your inflated ego prevents you from reading the words of others, so allow me to copy and paste each question and answer so that you won't have to strain yourself by scrolling up the page to go over it again since you missed all this the first time:

First question asked, "I see no indication that the "unavailable" Crystalsky.com began a redesign "about a month ago". Do you have some connection to Crystal Sky?"

To which I replied in my very next comment, "I mentioned Crystal Sky is currently unavailable and why, just as a courtesy in case someone tried to visit the site and the page would not load." This relates directly back to practically the first thing I said in this discussion, "Also added original plot synopsis back into article which came from the film production company Crystal Sky's own website. Crystalsky.com is currently unavailable because the site is undergoing a redesign, which began about a month ago."  Which established in this discussion that I have visited the site, so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that someone might visit a site more than one time.

Next question asked, "Id also like to point out crystalsky.com was last archived by archive.org on may 1, 2008 with nothing at all for the year 2009, which is rather strange, are they still in business?"

To which I replied in my very next comment, "Crstal Sky must still be in business if another of their productions Tekken was just released in Japan at the end of last month."

Next question asked, "lastly, you seem to be dodging the question (asked twice now) of how you know the sites under construction?"

To which I replied in my very next comment, "I have visited the Crystal Sky site a number of times, and as I have already stated above it was around a month ago when I visited again, and noticed the site was unavailable and had been replaced by a holding page indicating that the site was under reconstruction, but I'm not sure when the holding page might have gone up. It was actually only a few days ago that the holding page was taken down and is now just returning the "403 Forbidden" error when visiting the site."

Quite frankly I find it rather silly to ask someone that is clearly using the Internet how they could possibly know a site is under construction. Have you never visited a site more than once over the course of several months, and have you never noticed websites going up and down and changing and being unavailable for maintenance in all your time on the Internet. Is that really such a unique experience? I also find it rather insolent of you to suggest that I have somehow refused to answer the questions that were asked of me in this discussion.

But perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit, and as evidence you have demonstrated that quite well in this disscussion about the original article, which began with this comment about the filmofilia.com website. This is your comment from the article history: (cur | prev) 12:45, 9 April 2010 SummerPhD (talk | contribs) (1,409 bytes) (?Plot: -copyright violation  and promotional language) (undo)

I then explained that they sourced their information from the crystalsky.com website by my comment, "That site "borrowed" their summary from Crystal Sky as well, and even cite Crystal Sky as the source which can be found on that page just above the poster."

You then indicated that I was still somehow wrong about that point, because it could not possibly be your inflated ego getting in the way, with this comment as typed by you above, "(Incidentally, I don't read "“Robosapien: Rebooted” is scheduled to hit theaters in 2009. [source: Crystal Sky]" as saying "We copied text verbatim from that site.")"

Okay then, please do tell how filmofilia.com was able to "devine" the exact text and provided a direct source link back to crystalsky.com, if they did not copy text verbatim from the production company website? Lacinius (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - all of this is sweet and all.. the question still remains..notability? -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry to have bored you by answering some of YOUR silly questions, but if you didn't want them answered then why bother to ask? I'm working on the notability, but I'm not going to sit idle and let a subtle attempt at bullying pass without shining a light on the ignorance of that bully.  Lacinius (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - good.. so we are in agreement.. at this very second this article is not notable.. as you are "working on the notability" so why again is your vote keep without evidence at this point of notability.  I would think it would be delete or no vote per wikipedia policy UNTIL the notability is established.. not the other way around. like I said before.  I removed the original prod.  I hope you can establish notability.  but Im not finding any references anywhere that does-Tracer9999 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - one more thing. the webpage has been apparently "under renovation" since Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:08:15 PM. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because news results indicate interest in this project as it was developed. It seems to me that this film is experiencing a long post-production period, and I believe animated films like this have long bouts of silence before the big media push.  It happened with Legend of the Guardians, for example... there was zero coverage from when production was announced to when the film started being marketed.  We are better off keeping this article and cleaning it up so when the film gets to the distribution stage, it will be ready.  If I'm wrong and we never see this film, it would be better to redirect this to a section at Robosapien. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave the article an overhaul to detail its production history better. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (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.