Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karma: The New Revolution


 * 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. After disregarding all the sock puppets and per MQS's "not sure", we are left with a weak consensus to delete. However, if somebody thinks he can improve this article I'll be willing to userfy/incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Karma: The New Revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The whole page is basically PR with total lack of neutrality. The film has not been released and has no release date--and only an online release seems to be planned. The sources are all basically PR fluff on obscure sites that are likely just based on press releases. Half of it is PR for the Zenji Museum. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as far too premature. While there is some sourcing available, there is not nearly to merit this being an exception to WP:NFF nor enough to support or allow proper cleanup of the article. Film released. NFF inapplicable. Changed to keep "comment". See below  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - No significant coverage to indicate that this film is so highly anticipated that an article is justifiable now. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are numerous reference links to many credible media outlets and the article has been around for a long time so a few links have expired. However, it is possible the article should be reverted to one of the earlier versions and a new page should be made for the Zenji Museum although both stories seem to have merged in recent media coverage. Recent coverage has been included in very credible publications which are well respected in the Yoga and spiritual industry where the article is based on and so to call them "off-beat" is unfair and a non expert opinion. For example, another page on Asana Journal exists on Wikipedia and the Yoga Magazine has over 250,000 subscribers. Anyone in that particular industry would see an article there to be very credible indeed. Also, many films are in wikipedia although they are not released in theaters so that has no bearing on a self-help type film.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipolice911 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the only edit Wikipolice911 has made on Wikipedia so far is the above comment. Many of the sources cited in the article make hyperbolic claims about the Zenji Museum and Zen Acharya that are suspect and lead one to believe they are not reliable sources. The piece in Yoga Magazine is only one paragraph and also makes claims that sound more like advertising than objective reporting. The link to Yoga Magazine is also likely a copyright violation. Finally, even if we accept some of the sources as reliable, the article do not satisfy the requirements at WP:NFF. Michitaro (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Keep - First of all, if an article is complimentary to a subject, it cannot be just dismissed as PR. That is not a call for anyone to make arbitrarily. Also, the sources are very credible in terms of the demographic and subject at hand and they have a right to make a statement about a topic be it good, bad or complimentary. Also, films that are released online or via DVD are still relevant. However, I can re-write it more as a stub so that more information can be added as becomes available. Also, the Museum part can be edited and condensed in order to ensure no guidelines are broken. I'll just re-write it as a stub to address your concerns. Thanks for the feedback so that I can improve my articles in the future. Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth be known 888 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do invite others to read the sources cited in the article and judge if their manipulation of facts indicates they are reliable sources or not. But, as stated before, even having reliable sources does not help this clear the conditions regarding films that have not been released. Finally, I find it curious that the user Truth be known 888 is effectively calling this article one of "my articles," even though it was user Buddhakahika who wrote most of the article. Is Truth be known 888 admitting he/she is a sockpuppet of Buddhakahika? What is Truth be known 888's relation to Wikipolice911? Note that several days ago I opened an SPI on Buddhakahika that involves Truth be known 888. Michitaro (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your allegations to be laughable and outrageous. Please conduct an investigation as I have no idea who this Buddhak character is. I was only referring to the few additions I made to this comprising some of the entries you are referring to. Also, it is not a feature film and therefore theatric release is of no relevance. Finally since you enjoy rampant speculation, lets ask – who really are you? Are you a sockpuppet for Gene 93k? Why do you have such hostility and personal animosity in your attacks? Could you be someone with a personal axe to grind against someone mentioned in this article? A jilted ex? Or perhaps a a white supremacist who does not like "ethnic communities"? Or could you be a Christian militant who does not like "work of the devil"? Or could you be "wikipolice" yourself with a split personality? If you do not like speculative questions like this then why do you engage in them yourself? I can also open an investigation on you for wiki bullies like you with too much time on their hands are responsible for the “edit wars” that have made wiki the laughing stock of the academic world. Personally it has no impact on me if this article stays or goes. But its interesting how much racism is here on Wiki and that is what I stand against. Where an ethnic publication is considered "off-beat" but Playboy is a genuine source. Who makes this call? And how is it that you cannot even tell the difference between a complimentary article and a press release? Basic class on journalism 101! Also, many contributors only make a few changes to the topics that interest them or their communities thereby bringing a level of expertise and knowledge to the subject. 20 year old trolls working out of their mommy's basements are unable to do that although they can make many more posts. The number of posts a person makes does not add to or detract from his credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth be known 888 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need to respond to the above rant. I will only note the following. 1) Whether a film has had a theatrical release is relevant because the standards for notability are different (you seem to be unfamiliar with the standards, so please refer to WP:NF). 2) AfDs are conducted to determine the consensus about whether an article deserves to be on Wikipedia and thus it is vitally important that they be conducted fairly and with no attempts to manipulate the results. It is not uncommon for users to try to defend their article by using multiple accounts to give the impression of more support for the article than really exists. This is against Wikipedia rules. Suspicions have already risen with this AfD because one user, Wikipolice911, appeared suddenly on Wikipedia to make just this one edit in support of the article. I did not mention sockpuppetry here in retaliation against comments made here. The SPI I commenced was done several days before and is based on an objective observation of close similarities between the edits of various accounts. Whether sockpuppetry will be determined is up to the administrators, but this AfD will likely serve as one piece evidence in that determination. In the end, I wanted other editors to be aware of my concerns about the validity of some of the votes being cast on this AfD. Michitaro (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; comment 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have re-edited the article as a stub so that more information can be added as necessary. The story itself had garnered a lot of media attention including on Indian news channels and even newspapers as influential as Hindustan Times. It was verified by Wiki editors since 2010 and therefore obviously was note-worthy. By editing it to a more concise version, we can remove the deletion tab and invite others to expand on it. If in a few months we discover that there is not much more to expand, then it can be considered for deletion at that time. This seems to be the most fair and reasonable solution to this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhakahika (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. For now, I will leave it to others to judge whether this shortened version clears the problems covered in WP:NF. But I should reiterate that many of the sources cited are still suspect. Half are dead links, and some like OfficialWire or TheStreet (the Fox Business link--now dead--is probably identical to this) are just uploaded press releases. The Scribd link goes to what is likely a copyright violation and should be removed. The remaining contain statements that are dubious and thus are hard to call reliable. Finally, length of existence on Wikipedia is not reason enough to keep an article. Old articles get deleted through AfDs all the time. In fact, in this case, the time this has been on Wikipedia works against the article because it only reinforces suspicions that the film will never get released (many of the sources talk of a 2010 release). Michitaro (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Comment With further research I do find the topic to [perhaps] have received just enough coverage to merit an article. Indeed, I have myself visited the article to further address issues with formatting and style per MOS:FILM to bring it fron stub to Start or even C class. And while yes, the nominated version had issues with tone and sourcing, I think the shorter version is more encyclopedic and serves the project... and yes, it can benefit from additional work. However, an watch will needed to prevent re-insertion of non-encyclopdic or extraneous information.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just FYI, but it is still dubious whether film has been released. Its own website gives no indication of how to see or obtain the film. Another webpage (one not linked to from the first, but in the same site), says you can download it if you write to them with personal information (this seems the only way you can possibly see the film if it exists). I have not seen any reviews--or even any third-person reports from people who have seen a completed film. Two things concern me: first, that the article on Wikipedia may end up being a means for a religion to accumulate information on people to be used for proselytising; second, the fact that one of the sources cited says the film has been released (but not in this dubious way and also giving the wrong date) only underlines the likelihood that many of the sources cited themselves contain factually incorrect information. Michitaro (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to provide them with personal information in order to obtain a download link... but on their website one has only to click a link and watch any one of the film's several segments. As it is viewable, it has "release". Yes, the original article spent most of its text promotion the filmmaker and the museum. Now, it does not, which is why I suggested above that a watch be kept to prevent re-insertion of improper materials.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you could specify which page you are referring to, that would help. I too found a page which seemed to offer the film in segments, but when you click each segment, all you get is a different flash html text with music, not a movie (such as here). The title of the page only says that it offers a trailer and an exclusive preview of the film. Michitaro (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Even with the updates done by MQS, I am maintaining my !vote of delete. The sources are somewhat marginal, and in particular, the one used to cite the release is dated August 23, 2011 and reads like a copy of press release announcing the imminent release scheduled for August 29. 2011.  The other articles also look rather like pastiches from press release.  There is also a lack of reviews of the film which would indicate there is a lack of any critical notice. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to change your vote. I agree that the sources dealing with a major religion-topic of do seem ornately flowery in speaking toward their religion-related topic. But as we are for the most part speaking about non-english authors writing about a religious topic, is such tone to be seen as ONLY strictly promotional, or might it be out of the source author's respect for the topic.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, let me mention that the SPI against Buddhakahika, who created this article and voted above, has confirmed that Buddhakahika is a sockpuppetteer who has misused multiple accounts: Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. Wikipedia911, who also voted above, is one of those accounts. All the confirmed accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Truth be known 888, who voted above (and who clearly has violated WP:CIVIL), has been determined "possibly bordering on likely" to be Buddhakahika, and administrative action is pending. While Buddhakahika's efforts to manipulate this AfD are one reason the user has been blocked indefinitely, it should be stressed that the multiple accounts were first used to litter Wikipedia with statements presenting the particular views of a single religious organization run by an individual as historical fact (and to promote the products of that individual, including this film and the Zenji Museum). I wrote a summary of these activities on MichaelQSchmidt's talk page: User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt. It should be reiterated that just because the person who created this page is a sockpuppetteer who tried to disrupt this AfD does not automatically mean the article should be deleted. The article can still stand if it passes WP:NF. However, given the deceptive efforts of Buddhakahika--who is likely associated with this film and this religion--we have to be very careful in our judgment. Knowing these efforts to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a religion created by an individual, one can easily imagine that the same individual has been trying to use the media in a similar way. The sources used to verify this film thus must be given extra scrutiny. Like Whpq above, I do not think they withstand that scrutiny. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt, as MichaelQSchmidt argues, none of them verify one simple thing: that this film is complete and has been seen by third-parties. The sources give multiple release dates (and even one of the religion's websites gives another one: September 11, 2011)--which makes it unclear if it ever really was released--and the only way to see this film (if it exists) is to contact the religion and give them your personal information (at least your e-mail address). Without any independent sources saying they have seen the completed film, and given the peculiar way it is being distributed, I cannot free myself of the suspicion that the promise of showing the film (without possibly the film even existing) is being used as a means of getting people to contact the religion so that they can become the object of proselytization or donation requests. Having a Wikipedia article gives a stamp of authenticity to this film. I personally think the safe course of action is to delete this article. If a user can subsequently find independent RS who have seen the actual film and verify its notability, then the article can be recreated. Michitaro (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduced my support above to only a "comment". The flash movie segments on the http://www.rightkarma.net/ website may qualify as "film", but in actually watching the available trailer and "film" segments The Defender The Abbott The Enlightened The Savior The Teacher Dharma Talks The Collection The Temple and Holy Texts it seems they are more a set of religious infomercials, than an actual self-help film... and that is of a concern. But as we do have sources speaking about it (albeit in a flowerey and ornate manner), it still might be seen to pass WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. But after watching the segments, I feel less positive toward a definite keep and am willing to say so here.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Michael has said that WP:NFF does not apply here, but I think the third paragraph provides useful guidance: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I can't see any special reason that the production for this film should be notable, and most of the sources in the article seem to be variations on the same press release. If there was at least one review of the film out there then I might be persuaded otherwise, but I do not think this article is worth keeping with the sourcing that there is. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:01, 7 April 2012 (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.