Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Zeitgeist


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Okay, this one was a toughie. Once one discounts the obviously silly bits ("Noah Feldmen lent his name!", "why should it be encyclopaedic?", and my favourite "keep if it's not a hoax, I know it's unverified"), and the anon who signed as a logged-in user but wasn't, there's not much left but arguments for deletion. Good arguments, like "it's not even on IMDb" and "there's no independent verification", the sort of arguments we like to see on AfD (as opposed to an unqualified "non-notable", which is the more common fare). So, delete. I am equipped with a talkpage if anyone wants to hurl rotten tomatoes at me later. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

American Zeitgeist
Non-notable (and unreleased) film. "American Zeitgeist" "Rob McGann" (Rob McGann is the creator) gets 10 google hits. Thue | talk 00:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - There isn't even an imdb article about it! 9cds 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - connects many other articles - like a disambig page, but about a nexus of other articles rather than their distinction. Airumel 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. I fail to see how this acts as a disambig page.  This is an article about a non-notable indie documentary that has yet to be released.  Movementarian 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Thesquire 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per absence from IMDb. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  15:46, Dec. 15, 2005
 * Delete: With this capitalization, it couldn't disambiguate articles on a particular American zeitgeist: it can only refer to a particular film that has not been released and is not appropriate content. Geogre 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: all info has been submitted to IMDB, they take 2-4 weeks to process; film has already shown at one festival, will show at many more over next six months; the caliber of film's interviewees should demonstrate that AZ is a serious work, not a non-notable indie. Suchman 4:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So you say. When IMDB has it, we can verify it.  Until the film is 1) released, 2) reviewed, 3) has an impact, 4) discussed by someone not involved with it, it cannot have an article.  Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Noah Feldman, prof at NYU law, wouldn't lend his name to bad project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.219.138.254 (talk • contribs)
 * The issue is not whether this documentary is good or bad, the issue is whether this documentary is notable enough for an article. Aecis praatpaal 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

jcuk
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball about notability. mikka (t) 22:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is NOT current wikipedia policy.
 * So? Verifiability is.  Furthermore, advertising is.  Furthermore, "encyclopedic content" is.  Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Obviously a serious documentary from the impressive list of interviewees (assuming this is not a hoax--if not in IMDb, how to verify?).  But also smells like self-promotion. Billbrock 03:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If it can't be verified, it can't be verified. Deletion policy is that unverifiable artworks, regardless of anything else, should be deleted. Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is verified that a sneak preview of the film screened at the Ohio Independent Film festival in November. This is a potentially important film that is just beginning to be shown domestically. User:Cinophile 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC
 * And now we have the citing sources policy in play. Where did you get this information?  Oh, yes, delete per anyone who also voted delete. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:00, 17 December 2005 (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.