Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venus Project


 * 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   merge to Zeitgeist: Addendum.  MBisanz  talk 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Venus Project

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Relies heavily on primary sources. The topic gained notoriety due to being a focus of the movie Zeitgeist: Addendum, a full-length documentary released for free on the internet. To be honest I'm not sure myself whether or not that constitutes notability. There's also widespread coverage, but mostly via blogs, and again I don't know if that means notability either.

There's also concern on the talk page that the project is nothing more than a money-making scheme.

A merge to Zeitgeist: Addendum might be a solution.  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:52, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - No evidence that it is notable independent of the film. Otherwise fails WP:N. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect – I am more inclined to merge/redirect to Jacque Fresco or vice versus. Each individually is marginal at best under the Notability guidelines, as shown here, and here .  However, together, I believe they meet the standards.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jacque Fresco is only notable for The Venus Project, though. If a merge is to occur, I think they could both be merged to Zeitgeist: Addendum.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:29, 3 Dec 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – The reason I say merge to Jacque Fresco or vice versus and not Zeitgeist: Addendum is that Zeitgeist: Addendum only has one part, out of four, dedicated to the Venus Project. The film Zeitgeist: Addendum is not exclusively about the Venus Project.  In that both Jacque Fresco and Venus Project have received independent – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party references outside the Zeitgeist: Addendum film, I believe they should stand on their own in a combined article.  Man that was a mouthful :-). ShoesssS Talk 22:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge - (to Zeitgeist: Addendum) No evidence that it is notable. It is an advert for a corporation, that fails WP:N.  Widefox (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect – to Jacque Fresco for reasons by ShoesssS above. Each article individually is marginal at best under the Notability guidelines as pointed out above in google search on both. Fresco is mostly notable for being himself in interviews... talk shows, etc.- Incorporating Venus Project into Jacque Fresco makes the most sense to me. Mostly it appears that all of the connected information revolves around Fresco and his opinions, and yes it does appear to be a money making business. It may be that Widefox above is correct in saying their self published information is an advert for a corporation. Mention of Zeitgeist Addendum would be included in a new Jacque Fresco/Venus Project  merge article. Merging into Zeitgeist Addendum only, would take away from an older bit of information as to Fresco and Venus project which for better or worse have been around for some time. For that reason I think it is a bad idea to merge with Zeitgeist Addendum which may be trying to gain notability from Fresco... and not the other way around. skip sievert (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment a cursory search of the web indicates an exceptionally large number of different "Venus Project"s... this is not necessarily the primary usage of the term. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to Jacque Fresco. The Venus Project is not currently much more than an extension of Jacque. It is the philosophy and ideas of the man himself that is most notable. --CharlesC (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect - to Jacque Fresco. For now I believe the venus project should redirect to Jacque's page and have a section there for the venus project up until it is expanded enough for it to warrant its own article. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Merge to Jacque Fresco and/or Zeitgeist: Addendum (it should probably redirect to the former). Either way, it doesn't seem to have achieved sufficient coverage from independent reliable sources to justify an article in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 06:07, 6 December 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.