Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:31, 10 July 2007

Zeitgeist the Movie

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

"Zeitgeist The Movie is a film exploring the relationship between Christianity, 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Bank. It was released in 2007 on Google Video and is available for free distribution." That's swell, but the article lacks any information asserting that the film is at all notable. According to one of the article's main contributors, "there is huge word of mouth already. I will, and no doubt others will add sources proving noteriety as and when google caches the webpages into it's search lists." Until then, the "under construction" banner has been in place for five days, and I couldn't find any news sources about the film, or really any sources outside of hosts for the film and blogs insisting that everyone MUST WATCH IT. Maxa megalon 2000 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article "released in 2007 on Google Video". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Let's work together and make wikipedia better, not smaller. Let's improve the article, not delete it. I was tipped to see the movie, in the Netherlands by a friend of mine who works at a bank. We can debate for ages whether it is notable; I can assert it is being noted.  Xiutwel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. Marcus1234 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as stated by Xiutwel that the movie is being noted. Since there are no compelling standards of notableness beyond a few interested people, the article deserves to stay, barring any other issues that may arise. Kanodin 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to the above, there are compelling standards of notableness for Wikipedia, those being applicable here being the guidelines for films and web content. While there are references to this movie on the web, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence that the movie qualifies under either the film or web content notability criteria. So far, I can't confirm that it does. --Metropolitan90 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Criteria for notability do not include having been 'noted' by a Wikipedia editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- do not include having been 'noted' by a Wikipedia editor — if you would read more carefully, you might understand that I was making the point that it was noted not so much by me but by someone who works at one of the institutions described in the movie. Therefore I guess notability will be established sooner rather than later.  Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as soon as notability is thus established the movie may merit an article. But not before. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The under construction beanner has only been up for 5 days and already it's up for deletion???? Isn't this a bit over zealous? Wikipedia is edited by people in their spare time. If you google this film under specific quotes "Zeitgeist The Movie" you get around 80,000 hits. Further, why should a film that has been released for free distribution and be publicised on the blog scene be handicapped against a film that's been released through a distributer and publicised with commercial help? There's a huge underground buzz about this movie.Vexorg 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is akin to myspace & youtube cruft; most of the ghits are from blogs & mirrors quoting the same thing ad nauseum. Of the 5 links #1 & 2 are primary source, #3 & 5 does not reference the film at all, and #4 is a google search... Therefore there's no 3rd party references given - nothing except primary sources. This simply does not meet the minimum standards for WP:NOTFILM and WP:WEB. SkierRMH 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Give it time to improveMark E 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability so delete as per WP:WEB with no prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found. Davewild 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is beyond discussion that the article does not yet meet Wikipedia standards. Deleting however will not speed up its improvement. Please do not lynch articles but improve them.  Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really don't see what the problem is. Why should it be so hastily deleted, and why should you be so intent on deleting it? I happen to value wikipedia because it has what I look for - in other words, I look up Zeitgeist, and there it is, and that makes me happy. Moreover I don't see how it's a negative addition to begin with - aren't there more important things to be done than trying to delete the article a week after it's been created? Finally, it informs on what the movie is about, and should anyone ask me what it's about I can easily link them to wikipedia - which I like. It's not like there's any problem with the neutrality of the article or anything of the sort. Give it time and let it 'meet your formal standards', as deleting will not solve anything but waste more time on it. Mithadon 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Amendment is infinitely preferable to deletion. Instead of arguing for why it should be deleted, help amend it so that it meets the standards of wikipedia. This video is very important and the information about it needs to be there. 82.30.66.83 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Very informative movie and wiki entry. It tackles serious issues that need to be tackled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.
KEEP I don't see the what all the fuss is about. "Zeitgeist - The Movie" is a well made, informative film. As other uses have said, the film tackles serious, somewhat grave and thought-provoking issues. If anything, this film highlights the current trend for productions of this kind on the internet and deserves to be noted. Paul S UK 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About the only notability that the film can come up with is word of mouth and google search counts, but these don't fall into our notability guidelines. Only keep arguments in place are either non-sequiturs or not holding the article to policy. This film, in short, isn't all that notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published youtube nonsense. If self published books aren't usually notable, why should silly conspiracy mongering nonsense on 'google video'. If there's a video of someone's cat dancing 'released on google video' does that make it notable too? Nick mallory 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero outside 3rd party RSs to establish notability. No prejudice against future creation of an appropriate non-spammy article if it actually does get noticed by some RSs. DGG (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clean the sock drawer. Put the meat back in the meat locker. There is no coverage by any reliable sources. GassyGuy 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Delete''' Self published youtube nonsense.  If self published books aren't usually notable, why should silly conspiracy mongering nonsense on 'google video'.  If there's a video of someone's cat dancing 'released on google video' does that make it notable too? [[User:Nick mallory|Nick mallory]] 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' Zero outside 3rd party RSs to establish notability. No prejudice against future creation of an appropriate non-spammy article if it actually does get noticed by some RSs.  '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Clean the sock drawer. Put the meat back in the meat locker. There is no coverage by any reliable sources. [[User:GassyGuy|GassyGuy]] 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)