Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous


 * 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 keep. Single purpose accounts noted. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous
Is it really appropriate to devote a wikipedia article to a one-hour program on French television three years ago? What is there to render this program any more significant for an encyclopedia item than any of the other thousands that are shown worldwide every night of the week? DaveApter 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Keep. What is at stake here is a case of censorship - this video is being attacked left right and center whenever it is put online. It is information that the public deserves to have access to, and if the video is not going to be able to be shown because of threat of lawsuit then at the very least we should have a Wikipedia article that discusses its content and the situation around it.  It should be noted that whenever the video is put up online the relevant site is threatened within two weeks, forcing the information that it contains about the insidious group that is Landmark Education into the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.194.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome to wikipedia! Please take a little time to acquaint yourself with What Wikipedia is not. It is definitely not a vehicle for publicising television shows, however much you personally may be impressed with the content thereof. DaveApter 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Keep. Yes, I think so. As a sidenote, the article is very well written. Pursey 12:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep covered by French Wikipedia. Addhoc 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't see it on the fr Wikipedia. The fr interlanguage link leads to a page saying Wikipédia ne possède pas encore d'article avec ce nom.. Tonywalton | Talk 13:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A well written article Matthuxtable 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong DELETE I hate to sound one-sided on this but DaveApter's point is quite right on. This is a one hour show that was pulled off the web site by its own news organization after charges of it being hack job were made.  This is NOT about censorship as the unsigned- and therefore, I believe, discounted vote- user claims.  It is about having encyclopedia articles about things that are accurate.  Citing innaccurate source does not make the facts any more accurate- it just makes them CITED innacurate facts. Please.  This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. 71.232.7.182 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 71.232.7.182 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * The notability of the article becomes all the greater given that Landmark Education's main French-language web-page provides direct links to not one but two attempted refutations of the broadcast. -- Did any independent and uninvolved parties make allegations of hack journalism? or did such allegations come from Landmark Education, the "victim" whom one might expect to respond indignantly? -- As for the alleged inaccuracy of citations, the story has at least two sides, and Wikipedia has the bandwidth to cover them both and in detail. - Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Unless we are going to have a page for every episode of every TV show... or, let's see, we have copyrighted information recorded against agreement that is inside of a copyrighted TV show. I did not see any notice of permission from the TV show to use it. Spacefarer 16:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Spacefarer (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Strong Delete This article was put up as a smear campaign. The content is in French referenced is in French and only selective parts are being quoted.  Where this video has appeared on the Internet, it has been taken down for copyright infringement.  Wikipedia has been used to promote copyright infringement, not by hosting the copyrighted content, but by serving as a marketing and promotion link source.  That is a major intent of this article.  It's fine to reference the film from the Landmark Education wiki page because it is controversial and because of the effect it had on Landmark Education France.  Note also that France 3 (when searching on "Landmark Education" on their web site) no longer maintains information about the broadcast, but only a reference to the Landmark Education web site.  So, in summary, its fine to report the controversy, but the promotion of copyrighted material and the selective nature of creating articles to support a point of view that is part of a larger smeer campaign needs to stop (over 3000 edits by Smeelgova in three months), no matter how cute the articles look.  Note also that all of the photographs are used without permission, in this article and several others.  Furthermore, the reference is to a version with English subtitles.  Who added the English subtitles?  The video does not say--which is supreme evidence of copyright infringement.  Sm1969 16:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Selective quoting seems inevitable unless we transcribe the entire video and contribute it to the Wikimedia Commons. If my fellow-editor has a concern with balanced quoting, s/he can add further quotes from the broadcast to the article, including the statements of the Landmark Education representative Sophie McLean. -- Allegations of a smear campaign may overlook the addition to Wikipedia by Smeelgova of a large body of well-referenced work of wide and abiding interest to readers. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note further, that the Google video and Wikipedia links to that video have now been removed as well. This video article was put up to market links to copyright infringement. Sm1969 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Finally, even the French language Wikipedia does not have an article on either A) Landmark Education or B) this episode "Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous." Why on earth should the English language Wikipedia have it? Sm1969 03:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Sm1969 asks why the English-language Wikipedia should contain material not in the French-language Wikipedia. Sadly, the French Wikipedia has long lagged in the insertion of articles, but that by no means implies that the English Wikipedia should neglect the Francophone world. Think of the present article as a service to Anglophone readers and to viewers of a French-language broadcast with English-language subtitles, making the backgound and the materials less "difficult to find". (That charitable good-faith interpretation would fly in the face of the allegation claiming that the insertion of the article aimed "to put forth negative evidence on" Landmark Education, though. Fortunately, subsequent edits have/will/can NPOVise any such alleged intention.) - Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This describes the article a POV fork. Sm1969 07:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * I'm a major contributor to WP:POVFORK and I don't see how this could be considered a POV fork. "POV fork" means more than simply "currently written in a POV fashion." -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is relevant only in the context of Landmark Education. The French Wikipedia says nothing about LE and nothing about this video.  The article was created to put forth negative evidence on LE.  What's worse--the underlying source is all in French language and any disputes to it would be in French, so they are difficult to find.  We do know that France 3 was fined for violating media ethics.  The film should be given a paragraph on LE's main web page, not its own article with selective quotes and ongoing advertisements of links and directions on how to get copyrighted material without permission. Sm1969 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * I was addressing your argument that the article was a "POV fork". Why are you not doing so?  As for your last sentence, it's a bit of a false choice, isn't it?  You list a number of things which are all reasons for cleanup, but then fail to acknowledge cleanup as one of our options. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll get to the POV fork arguments later. I am in class right now.  66.243.153.70 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Ok, let me address the WP:POVFORK assertion I made. I has more to do than with just POV fashion.  For it to be a POVFORK, it must be a POVFORK of something.  I assert that the article would have no merit outside of Landmark Education.  The French Wikipedia has (last I checked) neither an article on Landmark Education nor on this particular episode nor on the series in general:  Pieces A Conviction.  In fact, before this Wikipedia article and a few discussions on the Rick Ross message boards, there is little to no English language discourse on the episode.  We can't tell what is said about it in France, because we can't read French.  That's my evidence for the POV FORK--it should go to Landmark Education.


 * All of the quotes in the article are taken from anonymous translations of English subtitles of the episode. We don't know who did the translation.
 * The France 3 web site that broadcast this episode no longer mentions it, but does put in a link to Landmark Education's French web site.
 * There is zero evidence that France 3 released copyright, and considerable evidence that they did not: the video was taken down from YouTube, Archive.org, Google Video.  User:Smeelgova has been putting links in several Wikipedia articles to the purloined content, and I have redacted them.  The lack of telling who did the English language subtitles and the lack of all the other "credits" in the video are further evidence of an unauthorized translation.  User:Smeelgova has gone so far as to put up links to piratebay.org on how to get the video, and there are two different versions of the video going around: one split into six pieces and one that is whole, but neither that tell who did the translation or any of the other "credits" information.  We don't even know if we are seeing strategic excerpts.
 * Landmark Education's French web site notes from a Google-automated translation that France 3 was fined for violating the French media code of ethics.
 * Landmark Education also likely has copyright over the extensive sections of their courses that were secretly filmed, and the journalists signed "copyright acknowledgement" forms as a pre-requisite for being in the course.
 * This is a case of Wikipedia making news, rather than reporting on news (original research).
 * Finally, I assert that all of the content of this article has problems with 1) WP:V because we don't know who did the translation, 2) copyright and contributory copyright infringement, 3) the refutations and responses would be in French and we don't seem to have French-speaking Wikipedians that can translate the responses and refutations, and if we did, we would have the problem with WP:V.


 * As an issue of verifiabilty (WP:V): the article concerns a broadcast by reputable information-provider (France 3 and Pieces a conviction). There seems little doubt that the broadcast took place: the response to it by Landmark Education itself confirms this. The article correctly attempts to link to on-line copies of the video where available, in an effort to provide verifiability. Even if complaints force the video out of publicly accessible space, the fact remains: the broadcast took place, the France 3 channel effectively and thoroughly published the content of the video by broadcasting it, and it aroused and continues to arouse interest. This makes it a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sm1969 06:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * This article should be merged into Landmark Education. Outside Wikipedia, there is little to no English-language discussion on the topic from reputable sources.
 * User:Sm1969: Am I to understand that you are changing your sentiment/vote now from "Strong Delete" above to "Merge" ? Smeelgova 06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Maybe I am not sure what "merge" means or we disagree. I don't think this article should continue to exist.  I think it should be cited that there was a broadcast on the Landmark Education wiki.  I think I have always held that position.  LE's position, where substantiated, should also be mentioned.  I don't know what to do with the inference of causality that it destroyed LE in France for the expose, but rather indirectly (in my opinion) by having assisting declared an illegal labor practice when the center was only breaking even financially (per Google translation). Sm1969 06:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Strong Keep. This article is most certainly notable, having been viewed in France by over 1.5 million people, and was the direct cause of Landmark Education leaving France one month later.  Not too mention the censorship and "chilling effect" over the internet caused by Landmark Education's veiled legal threats to YouTube and Internet Archive.  Yours, Smeelgova 17:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC). — Possible single purpose account: Smeelgova (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic and related topics.


 * I doubt they are *veiled* at all. Landmark Education owns the copyright and that's the end of the issue.  France 3 also has copyright.  This is about obeying the law--whether you like it or not.  The version with the English subtitles does not even identify *who* put in the English subtitles.  Clearly, they are not translating the whole video, but selective parts of the video.  We seem to acknowledge that the video was taken down from both YouTube and from Archive.org for copyright violation, and the only entity that can make that request is the copyright owner.  Yet, Smeelgova insists on linking to material which is--with overwhelming probability--copyrighted. Sm1969 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Some have speculated that copyright issues caused the suppression of copies of the video. Do we have any proof of that, or does it remain mere speculation? -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but there is probably more quotation here than constitutes fair use, so this needs substantial rewrite for copyright purposes. In many cases, loose paraphrase (or just summary) would do just as well without raising copyright issues. As for significance, the fact that it was shown on television does not make it inherently less significant than a film. Given that we have articles on most (I think all) individual Seinfeld episodes, clearly this is of greater significance. - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Merge a small mention to Landmark Education if it isn't already there. This documentary does not seem to have significance beyond Landmark - the article seems to inflate its importance. Wikipedia is not a television program database. Bwithh 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The broadcast itself drew parallels between Landmark Education and other sectes (notably Scientology); accordingly, the article, in reflecting this, has relevance beyond Landmark Education itself in the wider realm of cultic studies. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep... but needs a cleanup for copyright problems, per Jmabel. Dgies 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (either renamed as Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous or merged as a whole into a resurrected article on Sophie McLean). -- Despite repeated allegations of copright infringement, do we have any evidence of a copyright issue here? The link to YouTube says: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." And the original link to the Internet Archive states: "The item is not available due to issues with the item's content." In neither case does copyright get a specific mention. The Internet Archive's Terms of Use lists several areas of regulation -- apart from copyright issues. The page for YouTube's terms of service appears currently unavailable. One might plausibly assume that the controversial nature of the content -- rather than specific copyright violations -- may have led to the suppression of that content. -- Insofar as copyright may apply, does it apply to quotation of the translated sub-titles, which constitute a different expression of the original content? -- I note the claim above about the video being "pulled off the web site by its own news organization after charges of it being hack job". Do we have any evidence that the French television broadcasters responded to any such allegation? -- Last time I looked, the archives for Pieces a conviction went back only four months. -- Allegations of a "smear campaign" or suggestions that the article's content interests only those interested in Pedant17 23:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would advise against resurrecting the Sophie McLean article. Unless she has done something notable since it was deleted last week, you'd be looking at speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4. Also, as Sophie redirects here, you're just advocating shifting the problem around. Why not get it dealt with here.  Dei zio  talk 08:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete / Merge: My reasons are listed below;
 * (1) This is a investigative artical on something that may have been contriversal, in 2003, in France. It turns out it was not. (It does show a significant bias however. It is also noted that France 3 was fined for this Film and the only contriversy, seems to be made up by France 3) (2) It is only one episode, I wish we could do a page on every Simpsons episode, but that is left to other sites. (3) The artical could (IMHO should) be condensed on the Landmark Education Page (which it currently is)


 * Whether or not the French public found the video controversial in 2003, the broadcasting of that video certainly appears to have played a role in the closing down of Landmark Education activities in France. Any French controversy may have cooled; but other countries still hosting Landmark Education activities have a potentially more lively interest in Landmark Education methods and practices. -- I understand that the France 3 channel paid a small token fine only -- more like an insurance payment in case of invading privacy -- and does so regularly for its broadcasts. -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IF the artical is kept, IMHO, we need to remove a lot of the quotes, shorten it and include some references on what impact it recieved in France. (Other than the easy to find ones kept by anti-cult sites, written by anti-cult magazines)


 * As for Copywrite Violation, I originally posted that as I have a concern about the significunt number of block quotes. If the artical links to a copywrite violation, that's not our problem. That's the problem of the hosting site. I do have a concern about the number of inclusions of links to the "copywrite violation" on Wikipedia. At last count it is over 20. It appears that every and any page that has any link (even by 2 or 3 degrees of seperation) with Landmark Education has had the link included.
 * Opps forgot to add sig Mark1800 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed from a Weak Delete to a Delete after doing more research this artical. France 3 was fined for this film, and it was reported as a beat-up piece. (the reverse of a puff piece) Mark1800 23:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, we actually do have an article for every Simpsons episode so far aired. Second, if there was a significant (and verifiable) controversy over this particular episode, that only makes it more notable, and weakens rather than strengthens the case for deletion. Andrew Levine 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a GOD, thank you, thank you. How did I ever miss that. Mark1800 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A Concern: why has Wikipedia, become a site to track a video. IF you go to the history logs, every time this movie has been removed from a site, the new site it can be found on appears here, on Wikipedia, within 30 min. We are not an opinion forum or a place to dump every last scrap of evidence to support a point of view. Mark1800 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reserve these comments for Talk:Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Smeelgova 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Strong Keep How very strange that an article about a film exposing a cult, would have such frantic attempts to remove it, such as the copyright and other templates being placed all over it.  Landmark claim copyright is violated  by tiny amounts of their workshop being shown in it.  Which is nonsense, and as if anyone would want to copy what's shown in this film  Suppression, a bit like Landmark tried to do to the film itself.  Almost as if they have something to hide.  Their vehement attempts to suppress information in itself makes it even more necessary for that information to be available and makes the film even more noteworthy.Merkinsmum 18:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that the use of the word "cult" is factually false and defamatory. In all court cases where that assertion has been made in the US (and when challenged abroad), Landmark Education has consistently obtained retractions. Sm1969 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Not according to the government of France it's not "factually false and defamatory". And please observe the Please do not bite the newcomers policy.  Yours, Smeelgova 06:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Here's your reference re "cult" and defamation:  on page 9 stating: "The fair and natural meaning given by persons of ordinary intelligence to to the allegation that a group is a "cult" ... is inarguably derogatory.  Further, in Landmark litigation, the court held specifically that the allegation that a program or entity is a cult is actionable as either a statement of fact or a mixed statement of fact and opinion."  Sm1969 07:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Please stop violating No legal threats. Thank you.  Yours, Smeelgova 07:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC).  — Possible single purpose account: Smeelgova (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic and related topics and over 3,000 contributions on this topic and related topics.
 * These are not legal threats as I have zero intention of acting on them (nor am I the defamed entity in this case). I am simply pointing out policy with Libel. Libel Sm1969 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

The above statement by Sm1969, as well as the attempts by Landmark campaigners to falsely and defamatorily:):) claim the article and film in some way break their copyright, shows the legalistic bent of Landmark. When a person writes 'cult' they mean in common parlance, as normal people would use the word. They use it to mean a destructive group. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a debate here about the worth or otherwise of the Forum/EST (strange they have to rename themselves so many times- as if their previous name they have to obscure from new recruits due to obtaining a reputation as a destructive group.) P.S. Thanks for your comment Smeelgova. However I'm ok:) I don't consider the comments of Sm1969 to be biting, he's entitled to his legalistic viewpoint, as others are entitled to disregard it as irrelevant to everyday use of the term 'cult' to mean 'destructive group.'Merkinsmum 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * MergeThere is already a criticism section in Landmark Education which discusses this program.Expand that some if necessary. This long article is too much space for one tv program years ago. We do not have one article for every American TV investigative show epidsode. Edison 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Landmark, like the group it sprung from (Scientology), tries to silence critics. Note that many (most?) of the people who want this deleted are "Single purpose accounts": likely sock puppet accounts made by members of the Landmark group (Odd, considering Landmark tries to teach ~integrity~.) Wikipedia has many pages on other special television shows and several on single episodes or themes unique to a show. That said, unless there are actual complaints from the French TV copyright holder: STRONG KEEP! Grub 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment When I put up this AfD proposal, it was really because I couldn't see that a TV program was a likely candidate for an encyclopedia article. But if there are pages devoted to episodes of the Simpsons, perhaps that's perfectly appropriate.  However, my concern is now that the article is really a back-door way of evading the WP:NPOV policies.  It's a way of giving extensive coverage to minority opinions about Landmark Education, and cloaking them in unwarranted authority.  It's perfectly ok to report the fact that some population (as long as you can identify them) hold the opinion that Landmark is cult, or that its programs harm people, or that it exploits its customers.  So long as you also report the fact that other (much larger) groups hold the opposite views, give due weight to each side of the debate, and don't advocate that either opinion is factually correct.  All this is already reported in the Landmark Education article itself (at perhaps excessive length already). DaveApter 18:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * This is not an article about Landmark Education. This is an article about an investigative journalism documentary piece made by an internationally recognized television program that airs to over 1.5 million viewers, on France 3, France's second largest television network, Pieces a Conviction.  Yours, Smeelgova 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
 * This is not minority opinion. Landmark, like Scientology, can't take criticism. This topic has seen a lot of "throwaway" accounts created just to support what is truly indefensible. What is the real reason you have an RfD here? You're a Landmarker, right? Be ~honest~ and full of ~integrity~ 24.76.101.49 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the previous anonymous user bothered to look at my user page, or my comments on the LE discussion page, he would know that there is no lack of honesty, openness or disclosure about where I stand on the issue.
 * As for 'throwaway accounts' - as far as I can see, all of the delete votes are from editors who have been active for months or years. On the other hand at least three of the keep votes are from accounts created in the last week or so. DaveApter 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * The concern about minority views gaining expression seems particularly apt in this case. By artificially regarding those who have "done" Landmark Education courses as experts or as a privileged body, one can give the impression that large numbers of people support or endorse Landmark Education. This non-consensus view, misrepresented (I believe) on the current Landmark Education talk page, stands in contrast to counter-arguments on archived talk pages. The subject of the article currently proposed for deletion, the film Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous, casts a wide net during its hour-long run, presenting views from supporters as well as from detractors, from participants as well as from commentators, from Landmark Forum Leaders and a Landmark Education representative to "assistants". It does the film, the broadcaster and the article a disservice to suggest, one-sidely, that this coverage may constitute "extensive coverage to minority opinions about Landmark Education, and cloaking them in unwarranted authority." -- Pedant17 13:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ' Delete', all we need now is one article per show from any country. God forbid. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware the -majority- opinion is that Large Group Awareness Trainings such as Landmark are somehow 'iffy'. I don't imagine the average man in the street would rush to say they're not a cult and are lovely, unless he happened to already be a believer.  Most people when told what landmark does, would probably suspect a financial motive behind the organisation's trainingsMerkinsmum 03:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is a page for discussing whether this article is in accordance with wikipedia policies, not for airing your opinions on Landmark Education - if you want to do that please go to a discussion forum or blog. DaveApter 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: DaveApter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Keep. We actually do have whole sets of articles about episodes of TV series. Lost, The Simpsons, etc. This article appears to be about a documentary that is actually notable. It is well-sourced and the subject appears to have had an influence on the outside world. -Will Beback 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rework and Keep There are sections that would only make sense to people who know about the show already. For example, the text below reads like Uncyclopedia. Also, the article structure is idiosyncratic. Show is notable since was broadcast to a significant audience in France and because it was controversial. Antonrojo 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "(section title)Jokingly refers to Landmark as 'Cult' And it’s useless to formulate the idea that this mumbo-jumbo clouds the thoughts/ideas, Alain Roth will not hesitate to impose his truth: 'I’m the boss. So show yourselves to be trainable!' Total submission required. But the absolute weapon of Alain Roth is humor. You ask yourself if you are not in a cult? Any occasion will be good for joking on the subject. 'Especially, when going to dinner, don’t forget to take off your badge. Otherwise people will think that you are in a cult!'[4]"
 * Cleanup and keep or merge. There is definitely much that needs cleanup in the article -- it looks as if people from both sides have tried to make sure there are sections which reflect their POV alone (Antonrojo has posted perhaps the worst-offending section here) and the article devotes too much space to conveying the content of the program rather than describing it (quotes might be appropriate in some places to precisely represent a particular point being expressed, but I doubt they are needed as much as they are used here.)  However, what certain people have described as a reason the article should be deleted -- the fact that France 3 was made to pull the report under pressure -- is actually a strong reason it should be kept:  like Stolen Honor or The Road to 9/11, the controversy around it has made it itself notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not find myself agreeing with Anateus often, but I would do this time. If the closing admin provides a strong suggestion to cleanup the article, so that it describes it rather than attempt to convey its contents, and the OR and POV (both pro and anti) cleaned up, then the article should be kept. Changing my vote below. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and keep or merge, as per Antaeus suggestion. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems encyclopedic. Mohammed al-Khawal 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Stong Keep. A show that ran Landmark out of France is definately notable material.  The attacks look much like what scientology tried and failed on its Wikipedia pages.  Keith Henson 16:26, 20 October 2006 (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.