Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie


 * 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 and userfy. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

As the creator of the list writes on the talk * page, "The purpose of this list is to attempt to provide a way to find sources relating to facts claimed by the Zeitgeist movie. This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film." Isn't that the very definition of original research? Pairadox (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Original Research says:
 * "Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research." (which this is)


 * No_original_research says:
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. " (which this does not)
 * I am trying to perform research that IS EXCLUSIVELY "based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research" and I am NOT trying to "advance a position." That is the whole point behind the detailed instructions on  the talk page.  If there is anything in the article that is NOT based exclusively on earlier publications on the subject of research, then let me know.  VegKilla (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Above, Pairadox said "Isn't that the very definition of original research?" This is nothing like the definition of original research.  Following your own link you will find that OR is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."  If I am advancing a position, it is obviously the wrong one because I support this movie and am expecting to find that everything it says is true (and everyone here seems to think I am opposing that viewpoint!). VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The NPOV guideline is irrespective of the actual position taken. By your own statement, this page is in support of the POV of the film, thus violating our NPOV policy. -- RoninBK T C 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not true at all. By my own statement I am in support of the film.  If you read the rest of this page, you will find people accusing me of being against it.  Whether I support it or not, this article I have created is an honest attempt at being neutral, which is why so many people have mistaken my position.  (I am in support of the movie because I have seen it and I think it is amazing.  Other than being really impressed with it, I have no way of knowing if it is true, and I have no vested interest (or conflict of interest) in the film.) VegKilla (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly OR. The 'Guidelines for editing this article * ' on the talk * page are rather odd and suggest ownership issues as well. Wikipedia is not the creator of this article's personal website. * --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I only wrote the talk page that way in order to help future editors of the article to avoid WP:SOAP issues, and to make a clear list of things to do. Please give me more time.  VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)  Besides, the talk page has now been blanked, so please don't consider it as part of the article.  VegKilla (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom, obvious OR. Jfire (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a POV fork of the article on the movie. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How can this be a POV fork? Are you talking about something I wrote on the talk * page or in the article itself?  I don't see how there can be any POV in the article, and if you are talking about the talk page...then let's just remove the POV from the talk page!  VegKilla (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Ice Cold Beer, you're obviously watching this page since you've been reveting my edits, so why haven't you responded to me? VegKilla (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, WP:OR in the extreme, despite the author's protestations otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nuke it from orbit It's the only way to be sure. Nick mallory (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain your reasoning. What are you trying to be sure of?  VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a quote from an Alien film, obviously not as well known as I'd assumed. Nick mallory (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as original research with the potential to violate the film's copyright (by transcribing all the claims made in the film). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The copyright thing is the only good argument for deleting the article that I've read! Can anyone confirm or deny this copyright thing?  Shouldn't this be fair use?  If not I am sure I can get permission from the copyright holder anyway, but thanks for raising a good point!  VegKilla (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Original Research, VERY strong ownership issues on talk * page as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I made such a specific talk page was because I was expecting other users to help edit the page in the future, and I was trying to do two things:
 * To help other editors to follow the guidelines, since I knew this subject was susceptible to WP:POV and WP:OR
 * To help other editors to understand what the goals and plans were for the article to ensure that it was created with organization
 * VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Original research, obviously. Maxamegalon2000 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to sit down with this guy, and as politely as possible explain what "original research" means in this context. I think his argument of "This isn't OR because I'm checking this other guy's research" means that he doesn't understand the meaning of our policy. -- RoninBK T C 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article. VegKilla (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not hard to figure out what happened... VegKilla attempted to edit the Zeitgeist, the Movie article; someone edited over Veg's edits; Veg, in frustration, created this article to demonstrate that the claims made in the documentary are untrue; and Veg is (in an attempt to be fair) documenting the place on the DVD or VHS tape where each statement is made. It may well be that this type of citation to the DVD was what got edited out.  I can only say that it's clear from the Zeitgeist article that Veg is not alone in criticizing the film's misstatements and that Veg can point out errors (or untruths) without documenting the exact minute and second where the statement is made.  The concern may be about someone coming back and saying on the talk page "That's not what the film says", but if they do so, then (and only then) Veg should break out the "evidence".  I would say, Veg, that there are plenty of sources that show that other reviewers think that the Zeitgeist film is, either negligently or deliberately, inaccurate.  Your attempt to be fair to the movie producers (by documenting where a statement is made) is commendable; and you're not the first person to be worried that an untruthful statement will be accepted as fact unless it's corrected.  But this isn't the way to do it.  Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Above comment struck (except vote) since Mandsford admits below that it was all lies. VegKilla (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And unstruck by Pairadox. Don't change another editor's comments. Pairadox (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And restruck again by VegKilla. Please take your own advice.  This isn't your comment, and I have had a discussion with Mandsford about this comment.  Furthermore, Mandsford edited this page 3 times while this comment was struck, and did not decide to unstrike it, so if it needs the strike removed, let Mandsford do it for himself/herself, or at least discuss it with Mandsford first, as I did before I added the strike.  Thank-you, VegKilla (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop striking out another editors comments. If Mandsford wants them struck, s/he can do it themself. Pairadox (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you even care Pairadox? Once this AfD is over you need to stop watching me.  If you ever contact me after this AfD is over it is definitely going to be harassment.  I don't care if the above is struck or not, but Mandsford has already admitted that everything he/she wrote about me was a lie, so I think it should be.  You need to change the way you deal with other people.  Read WP:FAITH a couple more times.  VegKilla (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mandsford is just making this stuff up! Six lies in a row!
 * It is easy to see in the edit histories that the following things that Mandsford said are lies (incase anyone cares):
 * Lie: VegKilla attempted to edit the Zeitgeist, the Movie article; someone edited over Veg's edits;
 * Lie: Veg, in frustration, created this article to demonstrate that the claims made in the documentary are untrue;
 * Lie: and Veg is (in an attempt to be fair) documenting the place on the DVD or VHS tape where each statement is made.
 * Not so: It may well be that this type of citation to the DVD was what got edited out.
 * Lie, I am not criticizing the film: Veg is not alone in criticizing the film's misstatements
 * Not so: The concern may be about someone coming back and saying on the talk page "That's not what the film says", but if they do so, then (and only then) Veg should break out the "evidence".
 * VegKilla (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Incase anyone is tempted to believe the lies that Mandsford has put in the above comment, please review my contributions to the Zeitgeist, the Movie article that he is accusing me of being "not alone in criticizing." (I was never criticizing it!!)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * VegKilla (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow...you guys are really upset about this. I'm very disappointed and insulted by the comment above by Mandsford.  I understand the copyright issues, but other that that, you guys are way off.  Did you look at the history of the Zeitgeist, the Movie article before accusing me of not supporting the movie?  I think that this is one of the most important movies I have ever seen, and I have no reason to think that anything it says in untrue.  In fact, for the short time that I have been editing the  Zeitgeist, the Movie article, I have been doing my best to place the film in a better light, as you can see from both my edits to that page and to the talk page.


 * I have spent hours working on this article in an honest attempt to figure out if what the movie is saying is true. I believe the movie probably is true, and I saw this article as a systematic and logical way to address the vague comments by people that this movie "relied on anecdotal evidence" or "unreliable sources" etc.


 * Furthermore...unless this is going to be a speedy delete...then I propose we suspend this AfD altogether. I created this article last Friday (Jan 25, four days before it was nominated for deletion)--I even put an announcement on the page stating this, so if this is a question of copyright I may be wrong, but if this is just a question of whether this is suitable for an encyclopedia, or whether it is original research, then give me a chance!  At least a week...I'm only working on this in my spare time.


 * VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD's are scheduled for five days, and considering the fact that there is significant debate, this is not going to be speedy-closed one way or the other. You have until then to try, but realize that most of the arguments against this article are fairly well based in policy. Even if you manage to complete your stated goals, the page will still violate many of our policies. -- RoninBK T C 08:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Mandsford. This simply is not an encyclopedia article in any way shape or form. The goal is laudable, and I hope that the author will be permitted to userify his work before (what seems to be likely) deletion. Xymmax (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "userify" means VegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in addition to not knowing what "userify" means, I would like to say, that although no list can ever truly fit the for of a normal article, I believe that this list can be quickly (some days) created, that it will make Wikipedia more useful, that it will greatly expand the accuracy of Wikipedia's information regarding Zeitgeist, the Movie, and that it will adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines. VegKilla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete despite the claims on the talk* page, this is the definition of Original Research and is also in vio of WP:SOAP *, WP:OWN * (guidelines for editing? * ) and maybe WP:NOT Doc Strange (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the quote I added in response near the top of this page from the Original Research article.
 * As far as WP:SOAP, I'm pretty sure I'm not standing on a soap box, because all of you seemed to have misunderstood my position. I believe the movie is true and am trying to verify that.  As far as WP:OWN, the reason I am the only person who has edited these pages is because I created them on Friday (Jan 25, four days before they were nominated for deletion) and no one has heard of them.  Once I finished watching the movie through once (which you guys didn't even let me get to that point), I was planning on inviting people who I had already been talking to on the Zeitgeist, the movie talk page to join me.  The WP:OWN thing is kinda silly, because no one has ever tried to edit this page.  My understanding of WP:OWN is that you are accusing me of reverting other peoples edits because this is "my page."...well that def. hasn't been happening.  All that happened was I spent hours trying to create a helpful research tool for a subject that many people are interested in.
 * Comment Did you even read WP:SOAP? Here's two parts of that - Wikipedia is not: "Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views" Wikipedia is not for "Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles." . Also when WP:OR says that summaries are allowed, that's usually in the parent article, not in another article. Doc Strange (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on your comment Did you even read the article that we are talking about deleting?  Do you understand what it is?  Have you seen the movie it is about?  You can watch the movie for free on the internet...watch the movie and read the article at the same time and in all those pages and hours I put into it you will not find one word that does not describe the topic of the movie from a neutral point of view.  Has anyone tried that yet?  Has anyone watched the film and read my page at the same time?  It is reporting exactly what the film is reporting.  The only thing that could possibly be wrong with the article is that it is too detailed.  I'm blanking the article's talk page since it does not seem to be helpful and is not needed.  VegKilla (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, please more time I realize that in an attempt to be detailed, I may have infringed on copyrights (honestly I don't know the law that well). If that is the case, I am sure I will have no problem obtaining permission from the copyright holder.  As far as all the other concerns (WP:SOAP, WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:OR) these concerns are because the article is not done.  I just started it last Friday (Jan 25, four days before it was nominated for deletion), and I have spent many hours on it, but there is a lot left.  If you give me a little more time, I am sure you would all see that this is neutral, helpful, and within all guidelines.  Please give me more time.  Thank-youVegKilla (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, six lies in a row? I guess that beats my record of four consecutive lies, set in 2003.  Looks like I misunderstood the purpose of your article.  Sorry about that.  I won't give the usual reminder about being "civil", since it looks like you honestly thought you were being attacked.  However, for future reference, usually, when people refer to statements as "claims", it's because they doubt the veracity of the statements.  Anyway, this type of overly-detailed study of a subject (not just Zeitgeist, but any subject) doesn't work, and it's one of those things that was more interesting to write than it is to read.  Save your hard work to your own computer, because it looks like the consensus is that nobody else so far is asking for a keep.  After everything else that you've written, saying "please" at this point in the discussion isn't going to change anyone's mind.  Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I was saying please is because it hasn't even been a week since I started this article, and I was hoping to find other people interested in helping me work on it (and turn it into something much shorter and more encyclopedic). I have a copy of it on my computer, but I'm not going to have time to finish something like this on my own.  If the article is deleted I am going to abandon the subject.  Maybe I should abandon Wikipedia altogether :-(  I think I might be better suited for wikibooks or something like that.  VegKilla (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research could be very easily avoided on this article, but it wouldn't make the concept notable or encyclopedic. I believe the main article provides a very fair presentation of what is worth mentioning. Indeed, in the long and tumultuous course of this topic's existence on Wikipedia, countless sources were presented and hacked down to the few reliable ones. And it is only the information to be found within those sources that is truly worth noting. Readers who want to know every single claim made in the movie can follow the handy link to its official website and download it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC
 * This article was not nominated for deletion based on anything except OR. I know this is not notable, and the reason it is not is because it is brand new and I am the only person who has worked on it.  The entire list of every fact the movie claims is never going to be notable, but if it is deleted now, then the collaboration required to turn this into encyclopedic information can never take place.  This process has not already been done on Wikipedia, and the list of sources on the movie's official website is incomplete and not encyclopedic.  Your argument that the official website or the history of the Zeitgeist article talk page are suitable substitutes for what is being created here ignores the fact that the goal of this list is to quickly, and through collaboration produce a product that is encyclopedic.  The answer that I have never had answered fully is, can I copy and paste this article to my user name space as long as the only guideline I violate is the notability guideline, in the hope that it will quickly become encyclopedic?  If the only debate here is whether this should be in the Article name-space or the User name-space, then I'm fine with moving it.  I'm just hoping that it can persist somewhere so that the possibility for collaboration exists.  Thank-you.  VegKilla (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems inappropriate
From what I can gather, you are trying to make a list of all factual claims in the film, and then find sources that will support them. I don't know why you're doing this, or what purpose it will serve &mdash; what's the point? --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<"This is not original research, but rather an attempt to recreate, or verify the research that was done by the creators of the film." Um, that is original research. Pairadox (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify Pairadox's point, according to the No original research policy, there is no difference between what you are doing, and what we consider to be original research. Wikipedia is not the place to fact-check the Zeitgeist movie. You might want to consider checking out Alternative outlets-- RoninBK T C 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Zeitgeist movie cites many facts, such as quotes taken from the bible, etc. Some people have accused the makers of the film of downright lying about what these sources say.  My goal is to create a list of facts claimed by the movie, and the source that the movie is claiming shows this fact.  Original research (according to the link you gave above) "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."  According to the Original Research article, OR is "is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."


 * My very detailed talk * page is an attempt to create research that IS exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research."


 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * VegKilla (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You are trying to tie claims in the film to reality. Unless such an analysis has been published and you are using that as a source, you are engaging in original research. Pairadox (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources." This article is a summary of Zeitgeist, the Movie; and Zeitgeist, the Movie is "a synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position clearly advance by the sources."  which is the whole reason I am so interested in it Do you understand what I am saying?  The movie is the published analysis! And I am using that as a source.  VegKilla (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand. You are taking a fact in a published source, and then checking it. *  The "checking" you are doing, and publishing here, is original research, since you are are synthesizing outside sources to provide a new fact &mdash; i.e. is the statement true, or false.  That's original synthesis &mdash; it's no different from a historian who collects facts from a bunch of sources and puts them together to provide a new conclusion which has never been published before.  Your conclusion (i.e. Zeitgiest the Movie is correct/incorrect about fact X) is exactly the same thing. --Haemo (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on (i.e. no "fact checking" or anything else except comments). VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

MBanak Writes

In the development of every institution, a time comes when the framework is stressed by the intoduction of unexpected elements. This Wiki entry seems to be such a case, and it is normal to expect stuff like this to come up. After thinking this over, I discovered why it was hard, at first, to find a clear and cogent reason to delete this article: The article is also hard to categorize. I don't like to add rules to a system unless they are absolutley necessary. Adding a rule to preclude "Lists of claims in movies" seems artificially narrow.

There is a statement of purpose already published within Wiki, to preclude this article. In the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we find the following rule: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

The difficulty in categorizing this article, amplifies the impression that this article makes Wikipedia an indiscriminate "collection of information".

One other barrier exists to the acceptability of this article. That is the matter of overcategorization. The categorization of this article is so elusive, that I believe any attempt at categorization will result in over-categorization. Please review the rules on the over-categorization page, and give them consideration.

Finally, a word on what to expect if this article stands: It is also said on the Wiki page "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", that "Wikipedia is not a battle ground". Unfortunately, this happens all the time. The controversial nature of this article will invite scholarly battles. I happen to be quite familiar with the topics raised by "Zeitgeist, The Movie", and the ultimate, inevitable refutation of the claims in this article will undoubtedly turn this Wikipedia page into another Internet Armageddon. Controversy, alone, is not a reason to leave out material, but the eclectic nature of this article, and the exected rebuttals, all guarantee a long, long entry. Respectfully, Mbanak (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the previous 2 comments (by Haemo and Mbanak), this article does not, and would never be allowed ** to state that any claim made by the Zeitgeist movie is either true or false, and would also never be allowed ** to imply that any claim in the movie is either true or false by the references it cites. This article could, however, become a useful cross-reference tool for people interested in finding the sources that the Zeitgeist movie itself cites.  As far as the "checking" you are talking about, you have misunderstood the talk page.  So many people misunderstood it that I have blanked it, so please consider only the article itself if you are going to support its deletion.  The intent was never to categorize any facts as confirmed or denied, but rather to use that terminology on the talk * page only so that the editors of the article could have a sense of what information still needed to be researched.  There is no room here for "finding" sources that support or deny anything—the movie cites it's own sources, this is merely an attempt to find those sources (such as the bible, ancient Egyptian text about Horus, etc) and present them in a way where someone doing research on the movie can find those resources in an organized way.  VegKilla (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * by me or most other editors.


 * Note that the talk page has been blanked, and will only contain comments from now on. VegKilla (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie
An editor has nominated List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help
helpme Please I need help with the List of claims made by Zeitgeist, the Movie article I have created.

It is going to get deleted (I think) and this is making me very sad.

The people who want to delete it, think that I made it as a way to discredit the Zeitgeist movie, but in actuality I want to support the movie, but was trying so hard to be neutral, that that is not clear.

I did not create this article as a way to avoid consensus on the main Zeitgeist, the Movie page, in fact I created it partially from an idea I got from another editor while working on that article. (see Talk:Zeitgeist%2C_the_Movie)

My edit history on this topic and on all topics shows that I make only good-faith and non POV edits.

I have spent hours working on this article. It is not WP:OWN or WP:OR or any of that. The only thing I am not clear about is if it violates copyrights.

My question is:

Can I just copy and paste the page to the User name space to save it from disappearing, or will this be seen as me being sneaky? I don't want anyone else getting mad at me. I am working so hard to follow all guidelines and I am so sad right now about this. These people are being really mean, and accusing me of all sorts of things that they could easily tell are not true if they looked at the edit histories. Please help. Thank-you VegKilla (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you can't use Wikipedia to host articles that don't comply with our policies. I concur the article is probably going to be deleted, and if you want to develop the ideas expressed in the article you should copy it to your computer. Addhoc (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course! You're free to create a subpage sandbox to work on an article that you're in the progress of developing. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So if this page is deleted, I am going to copy it to my user name-space, right?
Copied from above:
 * But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But can I temporarily have an article in my user name-space if the only policy it violates is notability, and I am actively involved in a collaborative effort to organize the information into an encyclopedic format? VegKilla (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course! You're free to create a subpage sandbox to work on an article that you're in the progress of developing. Cheers, Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So that means: I still hope that this page is not deleted, bug if this page is deleted, I am going to copy it to my user name-space (see the comment above made by Master of Puppets ) so that editors can collaborate on it, since I believe that the only guidelines it can be seriously accused of violating are notability and "list of random facts." VegKilla (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this page should not be copied to my user name-space, please say so here
* No one thinks it's a bad idea yet.
 * You don't need our permission to copy the article to your user space. Just do it before it's deleted.  Good luck to you, hope that you've learned something from the experience.  Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What you do is copy your stuff; then you create a page called "User:VegKilla/List of Zeitgeist Claims" and paste your stuff on to that and save it. It takes it out of circulation, and let's you work on your stuff while this "List of claims..." article gets the axe.  Eventually, if you think it's refined enough for a return visit, you can try putting it back in the stream of commerce.  Final word of advice: "Less is more".  Mandsford (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I don't need permission, but I know there are guidelines for user pages as well, so I don't want to cause problems or make it seem like I am trying to avoid the consensus of this discussion. I'm just so paranoid!  I've been accused of so many things on Wikipedia that I didn't do, that I avoid making good faith contributions sometimes just because I don't want to be accused of anything! VegKilla (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW: I still don't think the article should be deleted, but as long as I can keep it in my name-space and bring it back later, I don't care too much.  VegKilla (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2008 (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.