Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill


 * 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. In terms of policy-based arguments, there was a clear consensus that coverage of the film did not reach our notability guidelines, e.g., WP:NF. j⚛e deckertalk 00:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PRODed as only referenced to imdb: PROD removed after another ref added. However this does not look reliable to me, and I can find nothing of any substance to establish notability of this film. TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable film made by controversial conspiracy theorist. No significant independent press coverage. You can watch the whole film here [the film itself is copyvio, link removed[. It's a propaganda film pushing his agenda. It consists of archived news clips of famous anchors to try to lend credibility and importance to the film cut with dubious supporters of his cause commenting on them. Cowlibob (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Found this: "In 2008, B.A. Brooks, a director specialized in meanwhile at The New York Film Academy in the creation of digital movies, launched his first exclusive documentary created with videos downloaded from YouTube, a technique that was used successfully in the documentary at hand, Global EUGENlCS – Using Medicine to Kill, from 2009" - in other words, the film is made up of copyvio, so I've removed the link to it's IMDB site (where you can see it). Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment and reply to Cowlibob. Intertesting that you combine the 2 terms controversial conspiracy theorist. You should note that a theory is only a theory when it is just that. When a conspiracy is a fact then the correct term would be conspiracy fact. So therefore shouldn't you actually be referring to B.A. Brooks as a controversial conspiracy factualist and theorist as many of the points he has raised in this film have been acknowleged as fact? Ones that haven't could be referred to as possible theories. I find it highly interesting that you would refer to it as .... "It's a propaganda film pushing his agenda" Did you forget to add sonmething else to propaganda? Also I'd be interested to hear from you what you think his agenda is. (Starman005 (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment Such discussion isn't appropriate here, use your own talk pages please. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just take two things from my above comment. Non notable and no significant independent press coverage. The rest is unsuitable/irrelevant for this discussion. Cowlibob (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable, no significant coverage. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find any WP:FRIND sources for this film. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FRIND, as stated by LuckyLouie. Could not find any independent reviews or other coverage of this film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This film exists and can be downloaded, but as this piece has not received coverage in reliable sources, it fails WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Having seen this film, knowing the content and people featured within. and knowing where it gets seen and the following and controversy it has attracted, i'd say it has definite notability. (Joecreation (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment User:Joecreation, do you understand that we have definitions of notability? How does it meet the criteria at WP:MOVIE? Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Joecreation, Wikipedia requires a film be spoken about and analyzed in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. This film has not.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Schmidt, this film is spoken about in reliable sources, sites and analyzed outside Wikipedia. Just because they may be some sources you don't particularly like or copnsider to be conspiratorial (just because they have an alternative view to the official govt one) doesn't make them any less credible. It could be argued that what comes out of Alex Jones's mouth is a lot more credible than that of Bush or Obama. Ha, I think we know the answer there but 'm just using that as an example OK. THis is why I vote to Keep the film. No doubt here that the movie is notable. (Joecreation (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC))


 * KEEP - Vote to keep article. Has a strong underground following. Director B.A. Brooks highly notable in his field as the first or at the very least one of the few first to pioneer a certain type of film making. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Boss Reality, have you read any of the posts above? You seem to have ignored them. We use the word 'notability' in a very different way. Again, please read WP:MOVIE and explain how it satisfies those criteria. We don't take anyone's personal experience or knowledge into account. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to Dougweller , I'm not asking you to take my personal experience or knowledge into  account! The film is notable enough to have ebntry on Imdb,Doccumentry wire, Al free documentaries, Global Gulag, Amazon, BSI, American Built, TREZESTE, ANARCHIEL, Nasus, Organic Health Documenary Lirary and man many others. Also many other sites and all search engines birng up hundreds and hundreds of hits. I know that it must upset some Wikipedians that articles that challenge the accepted norm and comfort zone of aome people find their way here but that's the way it is. Notability is obvious. Status and impact too (Boss Reality (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Sources, yes. Reliable, substantial & independant sources, No.TheLongTone (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Boss Reality Brief entries don't count. Entries where anyone can add their own material, eg IMDB, etc, also don't count. 'Obvious' doesn't mean anything either. Where is the significant discussion in sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This one gets my vote for a couple of reasons stated here. This is in the same class and category of John Nada's controversial and groundbreaking documentary Wake Up Call and Dylan Avery's Loose Change. (Starman005 (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Comment Same question - how does it meet our definition of notability? We have an article on Loose Change because it easily meets our criteria. We don't have on at Wake Up Call (and please understand that DAB pages are meant to link to articles). Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Starman005... when Wake Up Call (film) does not have an article here and Loose Change does, all your comment does is draw further attention to this film failing our inclusion criteria.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment to the above - Schmidt, I know both films very well. Yes we all know Loose Change is here on Wiki and a quick search will show that Wake Up Call is not. So ?? Your comment doesn't really make any sense. Just because something isn't up here on Wiki doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Wikipedia is something that's changing and evolving all the time. Please remember that!!! It may be up here one day. There are many things that are not on Wikipedia today that may be on Wikipedia tomorrow, next week, next month, next year or when ever. Your saying that just because Starman has included a film here that does not have an article so it draws attention to Global Eugenics failing is totally irrelevant and with respect I say that it carries no weight. Again I say that Wikipedia is something that is changing and evolving all the time. My friend, please keep this in mind. Thank you. (Brother Samson (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Response to Samson: What you may have missed is that User:Starman005 used those two film in an WP:OSE argument, and that Dougweller and I both carefully explained that others thing on or not on Wikipedia is dependent upon coverage in independent reliable sources, and that Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill lacks such coverage. It's mere existence or it once being sold on Amazon is not a notability criteria.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep article for now, I remember when this film first came out. It caused a lot of waves with people or rather organizations that would rather not have such info discussed or put into a film, but this is not the time & place to talk about this. Brook's film was being sold via Amazon for a period of time but taken off. I know that some of the usual places one would see references to to this film don't review it now or anymore. There are possibly some reasons for this. Perhaps this film is way to controversial as it cuts too close to the core of certain issues. It's obvious that this film shines a bright light on the the industrial & pharmaceutical industries. As a result of this, Brook's film has been banned in some venues. The question whether the film is notable enough for Wikipedia could be answered by more research. There's not doubt in my mind that Brooks is notable. The film follows. (Brother Samson (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Simply stating it's notable does not mean it is when we do not have independent reliable sources speaking toward it. If in your personally feel it can eventually be determined as notable and you'd like the article placed in a sandbox at User:Brother Samson/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill so you can do the "more research" you might feel others here have not, simple ask the deleting administrator to do so. If someone does write a suitable article on B.A. Brooks, it can be spoken of therein until the film is notable enough for a separate article. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact there seems to be vanishingly little on either the film or the director on the net, even in the fruitier conspiracy theory sites. Of course, this could be because the illuminati and the reverse vampires have nobbled all the sources, but given that Brooks is so desperate that he uses David Icke I very much doubt it.TheLongTone (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fairly clearly runs afoul of WP:NFILM when considering what would constitute proper sources who have recognized the notability of the film. I see no mainstream notice that would be required for such an article. Thus failing notability, the only course of action is to delete until such time that the film becomes famous. There are similar films that are famous enough to be notable for Wikipedia inclusion, but this is not one of them. jps (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: A combination of low notability and WP:FRINGE topic means that we will never have sufficient independent sources to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * bobrayner, I see you refer to this as FRINGE. As one member mentioned Loose Change here and quite rightly as a comparison. I'd just like to add that if Loose Change was put up instead of Global Eugenics last week or whenever. We'd see the same types and possbibly the same folks demanding that it be deleted and using terms like FRINGE and NOT NOTABLE. I've seen it time and time again. So I have to wonder sometimes about what the real agenda is. I really do. It's a pity that Loose Change is already on Wikipedia. I'd love to see it put up next week and then see all the demands for deletion and references to it being a fringe piece of rubbish and unotable. I'd say that excercise would be interesting. (Joecreation (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Loose Change has been the subject of mainstream attention. Global Eugenics has not.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Joecreation, that is correct. Reading the article Loose Change (film series) I see it's been discuss in Vanity Fair. The Guardian newspaper, Salon.com, etc. It would easily survive an AfD as it is clearly notable by our criteria. Yet despite all the talk from you and the article criteria about sources, nothing like that has been found for this film. That neither of you can find any such sources speaks volumes. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks evidence of notability per WP criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2014 (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.