Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caveman Robot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caveman Robot

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


nn comic, about 800 or so Googles, one NY Times review of the author's off-off-off Broadway musical which referred to it as "a very loud and long mess." Delete.  RasputinAXP  c 11:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also if you type "Caveman Robot" as two words you will see over 25 pages in google!

Keep~ I get asked question about Caveman Robot all the time, and thought that 11 some odd years of production of numberous comics, dolls, and a full length play, plus reviews, and write up made something noteworthy. Yes the guy from the NY times did not like the musical, but it was still written up in the New York Times with a Photo! I am happy to reformat the page to make fit better in the wikipedia format, but I think deletion is unfair. How about helpping to make it a better entry instead of deleting?- Jason

Keep~ It's worth mentioning that the scathing Times review actually did more to benefit the production with extra publicity (and seriously, New Yorkers take Times reviews with a grain of salt. Look at the Bruni Digest). Plus, it was accompanied by a huge color photo, while a favorable review of another production on the same page warranted only a tiny B&W picture.

I value Wikipedia for its range of coverage from the mundane to the localized eclectic. It would be very disappointing to see the Caveman Robot entry suddenly disappear.

Comment User's only contribution to wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep~ I just read Wikipedia's deletion policy, inscrutibly worded as it was, and don't feel that anything in this entry is in violation of its edicts. The moves to delete strike me as tastemaking, and no one wants to go down that garden path. If anything, a pan in the New York Times is actually an arguement to KEEP the page up, as a mention in the New York Times found the subject worthy on an article in their publication in the first place. The hilarious supposition instead is that, if the Times LIKED the play, this debate wouldn't exist. Please.

Comment User's only contribution to wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy Delete per copyvio below and block the sockpuppets. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having now checked out the caveman robot website in depth it appears this entire article is simply copied from here. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 08:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes- I created that History page, to save the information that was on this Wikipedia page, before it was a dierct link here, but since you Olympians have cast your thumbs down I saved the info. Please go ahead and Delete this page, save more room for endless pages about porn stars and the guy that played the Gorn on Star Trek, and just for the record these were all real people on here writting what they acutally thought- Jason

Can you prove you created the history page? I find it unlikely that the official site of this has its information copied from a wikipedia article! Secondly, please sign your comments with ~~~~. You must understand that I am not pointing out other users to be vindictive, it is more to do with the fact that they all seem to have little or no edits apart from this page, format in a similar way and add little relavent informationg to this discussion (it is not a vote). michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 07:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. No hits in Google Books. If it's been in existence since 1995 and it were important, someone would have mentioned it. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The history page I wrote, which I later used as the bases for the Wikipedia entry came from the history of Caveman Robot Project which was written when Shoshanna Weinberger and I applied for the trademark in 2002. Since then I have been updating the Caveman Robot entry here on Wikipedia for the last 6 months trying to get it into the righ format. Once I saw that you guys wanted to delete it, I could not very well have a direct link on the caveman robot home page going to a wiki page with all these mean sprited comments. Here is what gets me, Caveman Robot projects have been mentioned/reviewed in The New York Times (twice, once with a giant photo) , Time Out New York (with a photo), the New City paper in Chicago, the Jack Kirby Collector, Oddball comics webpage (voted the best oddball comic of 2004), Factsheet Five, NyTheater.com (a review and a podcast interview), Off-Off Broadway.com, Theatermania.com, Comicbook reasources, and on dozens of blogs. I did ask people to come onto this page a voice their thoughts, but that was I, I did not tell people what to say. I read Wikipedia all the time and have actually added a few edits here and there, but there a many people out there that don't understand how to use your formating and this has keep them away from making entries. It is not just a series of comics (The 2 most recent ones having been national distrubuted), but is was a real Off-Off Broadway musical that had a six week run, and a live performace at the Knitting Factory, Deitch Projects, Participant Inc. in New York, and Quimby's in Chicago. On top of all this a Caveman Robot sculpture has been on display at Quimby's for Ten years and is considered a mascot of the store. I think many of your editors are looking at this entry as a comic or a musical, it is not that it is a vast art project that has been created by dozens of artist,performers, musican, and fans. So you take this off if it means do much to you, really I don't understand you people.- Jason

Comment: Actually, I did read the link before you deleted it and you did say "come save it from deletion."  RasputinAXP  c 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I did post the appeal, at the suggestion of a friend, Caveman Robot has a lot of fans and I figured they would want to voice their thoughts, when I realized that people might see it as bad form I deleted it, Also I think I have made my case in the above list of actual real press and attention, if you people can't see that, then go ahead and get this over with. But it is only a matter of time before Caveman Robot is back on here, becasue it is a real thing---- Jason

  • Delete per nom. The musical seems like exactly the sort of thing I would enjoy seeing. But I like non-notable underground musicals.--Nick Y. 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So the fact that it was mentioned/reviewed in The New York Times (twice, once with a giant photo) makes it a "non-notable underground musical"?- Jason.

Keep - "Sockpuppet," while amusing, is wildly inaccurate in this case. If I contributed to every forum I browsed on a daily basis, I'd have no life. Any entries I've considered adding to seem to have been already covered. That said, if anyone wants to breathe new life into the "musical" genre, it's beneficial to leave this entry, since interest in the traditional Broadway musical is currently very low among those of my generation. I can disclose I've been a resident of this neighborhood for 10 years, and have seen many bands, artists, shows from this immediate area go on to the mainstream. I can also say I've seen some of his work on display at local galleries, and it is on par with Steve Keene, (who lives down the street from me). Call me a trendwatcher, but it's the truth. I'd imagine an orginization such as Wikipedia would also want to stay on top of the trends. It may not be the Archdiocese of Cheyenne or a tiny Canadian aiport, but don't dismiss the relevance of underground pop culture.

KEEP I've picked up the Caveman Robot comic books at the last couple years at the San Diego comic con, and look forward to doing so this year. They are a lot better than a lot of the crap that is on comic store shelves now. I check out the Caveman Robot blog pretty frequently, and was shocked to see news of the possible deletion of the entry. Sure, a lot of people may have never heard of the character, but is that any reason to kill the entry. Isn't Wikipedia about spreading knowledge? Censoring information and excluding content based on taste works against this endeavor. Caveman Robot exists. Keep the entry, just edit it a little to meet Wikipedia style standards a bit better. - U.S. Ape

Note: Meatpuppetry above is a result of public appeal.  RasputinAXP  c 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some external links to Caveman Robot projects reviews and write ups- http://froogle.google.com/froogle?client=saf ari&rls=en&q=CAveman%20Robot&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wf

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/oddball/index.cgi?date=2004-12-31

http://shabot6000.com/blog/2006/05/oolar.html

http://www.timessquare.com/bway/newreviews/cavemanrobot/

http://fossen.blogspot.com/2005/12/thank-you-caveman-robot.html

http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago/3905.html

  • Strong delete, non-notable comic. Closing admin should discount the meatpuppet votes, {{afdanons}} added. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I did indeed come here via a friend, because I had to see the childish behavior for myself. Evidently the "editors" haven't fully recovered from their traumatizing high school years. The above "discourse" includes a lot of unnecessary snarkiness on behalf of the "editors," and blatantly contradicts #4 under "Key Policies." - Jane Minty

  • Delete and echo Coredesat's statement. The article is long, but.. it doesn't assert or prove notability. Sorry, but it has to be on more people's radar screens than what the article mentions. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! Caveman Robot is a true DIY phenomenon, a genuine example of the homegrown culture that can emerge from the “village media” model of locally rooted yet nationally significant creativity that the web has made possible. Wikipedia itself is a fine forum for “online communities” in the knowledge-seeking, non-cynical sense of the term, so a catchy yet essentially uncommercial enterprise like Caveman Robot is essential material for your archives. For any non-corporate, indie effort to crack the cultural radar of official history records like the Times, favorably or otherwise, is a sign of its importance. And though “Caveman Robot” may call up many google hits, the quality and consolidation of information Wikipedia offers is what makes the online experience meaningful and useful to begin with, amidst the same cultural din that Caveman Robot has had the quality and vision to rise above.172.128.41.151 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment User's only contribution to wikipedia. michaelCurtis talk+ contributions 07:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Caveman Robot has been supplying comedic and philosophical substance to art galleries in NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago. It has evolved from an individual artist's vision to that of a collection of artists who express their own views and styles through the character in different mediums ranging from painting and sculpture, comic books, graphic novels, music, costume and theatre! To me the deletion of an entire art community's collective dream is horrific, and I cannot understand what would motivate WikiPedia to remove it. If this happens, it will cause me to seriously reconsider the esteem with which I hold WikiPedia in conversations with others, my blogs and in my own personal use.

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.