Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum


 * 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   no consensus whatsoever, no matter which way I count registered or unregistered users, new or established users, and so on. However, unless the page is improved, I expect it'll be back here before the year is out. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: Addendum

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

Delete This article is about the sequel to Zeitgeist, the Movie, but does not inhert notability from it. This article fails to demonstrate notability through multiple reliable sources. It is somewhat telling that this article only uses the movie itself as a source, and thus cannot be neutral. --Phirazo (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. Merge this into Zeitgeist, the Movie as a section, and redirect there, so that people coming to Wikipedia looking for information will be provided with it.  Redirects are free after all.  Hiding T 12:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve - The film has just been released, we could wait for some reliable source to post a review and improve the article. I would not recommend a merge, due to the major differences in content of the two films. Let's improve it and find reliable sources as it goes on, it's already drawn significant attention among the blogosphere, let's see if the mainstream media respond. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There really isn't anything to merge. Zeitgeist, the Movie already has a section on Zeitgeist: Addendum. --Phirazo (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So the sensible thing might have been to redirect the article there. Hiding T 08:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article cannot be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.165.251 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Phirazo (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to delete things, like others have noted - this movie has only just been released. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.21.31 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested above, else delete. I don't even think the first one is notable, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Zeitgeist, the Movie. It's not automatically notable simply because the previous one was. When there is non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources, it can have an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve: The movie is a sequel of Zeitgeist, the Movie. The notability of this new movie is established by its presentation at the Artivists Film Festival where the movie was "attended by a sold-out audience of 600 people" and after it won an award at this festival. This movie is not a fiction and not exactly an unbiased documentary either as it represents a point of view that could be considered an essay. Rather than merging this article with the first movie, I would recommend to improve this article and limit the extent of the description of this new movie in the first title. A main difference with the first movie is the large representation of The Venus Project as a proposed solution. uiteoi (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve: Notability is a matter of time regarding brand new objects/events. By observing the fast growing notability of the Addendunm one can easely project that its notability will surpass the Wikipedia required notability, it actually probably already surpass it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanHuguesRobert (talk • contribs) — JeanHuguesRobert (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep and improve as film has gained its own notability outside the original film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve: The movie is famed. It very well deserves its own article. It's a very new release, however, so of course it doesn't have massive amounts of readily disposable information. Give it a little time and allow information to be gathered, and it should expand to the size of the original Zeitgeist article. If anything, I think it should be marked as a stub. There is plenty of information to be included in this article that just hasn't been typed up yet. GAMEchief (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve --Fathermocker (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Zeitgeist the Movie per WP:NNC If it had "its own notability" or "is famed [sic]" then it should have reliable secondary sources, which the article does not. I'm going to skip a search for them because so many people have already voted keep that I presume that they would have taken the time to add any extant sources; as is, I see at most one reliable, independent source. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Free online film shown at minor festival lacks demonstrated multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage needed to establish notability. Notability is not inherited from the previous film. Edison (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Zeitgeist the Movie, which only BARELY meets notability requirements due to a SINGLE third-party mention of note. This particular incarnation has nothing supporting it and until such time as it's released, you can track it's so called "information gathering status" at the main article. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve - Yes, it is true that this article is poorly written, but it is a notable movie and demands a re-write, not a deletion. Altonbr (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve I think it's rather strange to sugest an article for deletion so shortly after the subject comes in existance. Give it time. Webmind (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability Assertion: Google search for "zeitgeist addendum" Shows 92,900 results. Among them: Digg score 2718 and 875 comments; numerous blogs such as Dogmatic; Technorati indicating 83 blog reactions including one blog with an authority score 133 Web TV Hub. I believe that this quick search shows that this movie is already very notable in cyberspace and therefore cannot be rejected on the basis of the lack of notability. Out of Cyberspace, the film has received the award of "Artivist Spirit Award - Best Feature" from the Artivist Film Festival which, BTW, does deserve a Wikipedia page of its own (i.e. not as minor as claimed above) as noted by the LA Times, LA Weekly and multiple organizations such as the United Nations. I also do not see the point of trying to improve an article while under the threat of deletion and will not edit the article myself although I believe that the article could be very much improved and that I watched the movie twice. Although I disagree with some conclusions of the movie, this is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned and I therefore vote to Keep the article. uiteoi (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Have stricken second !vote by this user. Uiteoi, you get only one boldface "Keep". Deor (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I have removed the additional "Keep". uiteoi (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The Google test isn't useful for demonstrating notability. The number of results is an estimate, not a real number. 2. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Verifiability).  Digg is infamous for inaccurate articles being "dugg", and blogs are usually inappropriate for inclusion in an article.  Mere existence of a source is not enough, the source has to be usuable.  3. Even if the "Artivist Spirit Award" is notable, notability is not inherited from it. --Phirazo (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Digg is famous for evaluating the notability of blog articles. Likewise the reference by numerous (83) blogs is also notable, and Technorati is a recognized place to judge the notability of blogs using their authority ranking system. The Google ranking system is also notable and generates billions of dollars in revenues. All these arguments are just 'the Internet is irrelevant'-arguments and are the same arguments used by many opponents of Wikipedia. uiteoi (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability does not equate reliability. But regardless, "It is ranked on " is not a good general argument for either. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. The film was only recently released and should obviously be improved upon. It is already generating a lot of interest and deletion of the article would be premature.  Nebu_Bei,  Nebu_Bei 21:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment To editors voting "Keep and Improve" - show me a source that demonstrates notability. Not a Google search, not a blog, a real reliable source.  I've been to plenty of shows that aren't "Wikipedia notable" that were sold out and sat many more than 600.  --Phirazo (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is a conspiracy documentary that is not notable in and of itself, and the majority of the above comments have occurred due to the faithful adherents of the film posting on online message boards for everyone to come to wikipedia and stop the nomination. LowLevelMason (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand some people like to have a clean and neat wikipedia, but can articles also atleast get a chance to aquire sources for notability, this article is less then a week old and already marked for deletion. That sounds absurd to me. Webmind (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the content of this movie is a conspiracy theory, and I believe they are wrong in their analysis, but this is not the point. The point is about notability. The movie is notable after receiving an award from an independent film festival, period. We need a balanced article to possibly explain why the movie is wrong by providing counter arguments to the content of the movie. We cannot do this if the article is deleted. uiteoi (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Uiteoi, after your numerous comments here, I can only implore you to take another read of notability and notability of films. Notability is judged by independent coverage in multiple reliable sources (read that one again too). While (as stated in the second link) certain facts can permit the assumption of notability, receiving some minor minor award is not one of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the number of comments limited by policy? When multiple arguments are made, this requires multiple answers. This is a discussion and in a discussion one is allowed to talk as many times as deemed appropriate until the debate is called off. In the case of this movie notability has been largely asserted by multiple reliable sources. The possible remaining questions would be merge or keep. uiteoi (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're interpreting something from my comments I never actually said. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. deletion of the article would be premature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.157.100 (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve Given the high popularity of the previous title, it is just a matter of time spotlighted by notable media. Oh, by the way Digg aleady gave some interests already. 66.117.137.91 (talk) — 66.117.137.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * CommentWikipedia is not a crystal ball. Edison (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. This is a blatantly inaccurate and anti-semetic conspiracy doco that is not notable in and of itself, just promotion. Critical reviews are vital in the original title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.131.223 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve The film was given premiere status at Artivist Festival sponsored by both UN and Nobel (according to website), which gives it legitimity --Roberth Edberg (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ARTIVIST is a 501c3 non profit organization endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION and the INTERNATIONAL NOBEL PRIZE. www.artivists.org at bottom of index page


 * Notability is not inherited. Besides, there are 1664 NGOs associated with the UN DPI/NGO.  It doesn't seem that hard to partner with the UN .  The association with the Nobel Prize is that they got Claes Nobel to show up and accept an award.  He isn't on the Norwegian Nobel Committee, he is the great grandnephew of Alfred Nobel.  --Phirazo (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE This article needs improvement, but deletion is a step backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.8.179 (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources to demonstrate notability. If sources are found, use them to expand the section in the parent article. gnfnrf (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect It would make sense to have something that calls itself an "addendum" on the original page, especially when it lacks its own notability and largely shares its predecessors message and identity. Elithrion (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect since keep and improve cannot work due to the nonexistance of reliable sources (i.e. "improve with what?"). – sgeureka t•c 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable film. We should not "wait for sources", without sources the article should never have been written, as it is therefore orginial research. Redirect to section of first movie.Yobmod (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * merge and keep.this sohuld be merge to the original article.It is also not conspiracy video but a philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User Phirazo is a deletionist as stated on his user page Phirazo. Nobody can therefore believe that his opinion is not biased towards deletion. uiteoi (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment So what?  Fix the article, and the deletionists "lose"--fail to fix the article, and it gets merged.  Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Asnwer: Deltionism is dogma and as such is biased. Phirazo is asking for straight deletion, not merge and redirect which would have been more appropriate. Asking people to edit an article while under the threat of deletion is like asking people to contribute for nothing. I am opposed to the merge because I believe that each movie should have its own independent article even when it is from the same author(s). Furthermore this new movie has acquired its own notability through an award and the subject is very different from the first movie. As much as the first movie was a 9/11 conspiracy theory, the second movie contains a proposal for a new system not relying on the banking system. Deleting this article is akin of asking the deletion of articles regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories. We need these articles to help readers understand that conspiracy theories have answers. uiteoi (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The closing admin will settle the !vote by policy. If there's a good and reasonable merge target, deletion is a deprecated option. I'm not a deletionist either, but I've found that they have a valuable insight into keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic, and since they force me to think in those terms, deletionists make me a better editor. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer. The new movie is so different than the first that I think a merge is not appropriate. One major difference is that the first movie is by all means a conspiracy theory while the new movie is much more subtle and addresses a problem with a solution with The Venus Project. Comparing both articles really shows how different and independent these movies are. I would like to see criticism of the article content in order to provide a balanced view of the movie rather than this request for deletion and now for a merge. uiteoi (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article content can't be "balanced" for precisely the same reason many here have argued for merge or delete. And that is because no reliable sources have actually been presented that discuss the movie. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Answer: Out of the 83 blogs, and probably more by now, commenting on the movie, I would be surprised not to find a balanced view. Of course this assumes that the blogosphere is not irrelevant and can be reliable. Considering the blogosphere irrelevant or considering it unreliable a-priori is a prejudice. uiteoi (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added a "Criticism" section and references into the article after finding reliable sources critical to the movie. uiteoi (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge The sourcing on this is pretty awful. IMdB and Google Video both prove that this exists and little else. The link to Artivist Film Festival proves that it was screened, but the Acton Institute reference doesn't even mention the film. Shouldn't there be some critical reaction? At the very least there should be references not intended to promote the film. Instead of arguing about the validity of the views expressed in the films, the keep !votes should be finding reputable, third party sources, something I note they have failed to do and I have been unsuccessful in locating myself. A  ni  Mate  22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question for Phirazo: You main argument for the deletion of this article is flawed. You state: "It is somewhat telling that this article only uses the movie itself as a source, and thus cannot be neutral". Please take a look at the Loose Change (film). That references itself quite often. In fact, every article references itself at one point or another. IF ANYTHING, add a 'criticism' or 'controversy' section to make it non-biased.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.102 (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Are self-references allowed when it comes to certain types of media? Absolutely. Loose Change certainly references itself quite a bit, however this article only references itself and websites used to promote it. There aren't any third party references secondary sources. Find some, preferably not from a blog, and the article won't be in danger of deletion. Simple. A  ni  Mate  01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This motion picture is based ONLY on third party sources! Jacque Fresco is a 3rd party source, as the movie greatly involves the Venus Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.102 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's try this again. Third party/tertiary sources are encyclopedias and stating you needed to find them was a goof on my part. You actually need secondary sources, such as magazine articles or newspapers. Find reliable secondary sources that discuss the film, and you have a well referenced article. If you can't find any sources, then the film isn't suitable for Wikipedia. The theories and information contained in the film are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. We're not here to discuss if the message of the film is right or wrong or well sourced. If this article is to be retained, you must find sources that discuss Zeitgeist: Addendum specifically. A  ni  Mate  03:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Magazine articles and newspapers are not the only valid sources of information. Internet-borne medias are no more, and no less, valuable than legacy medias. uiteoi (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but they must satisfy WP:RS. If they don't, then they can't be used as sources. For instance, MetaFilter and the "unnoficial blog" of the UK Libertarian part aren't reliable. In fact, they're downright terrible. A  ni  Mate  20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. While a written reliable source is no more or less valuable than a web-based reliable source, there is still a need to demonstrate that the source is actually reliable. Given that anyone can create a blog, the base assumption is that all blogs are unreliable for controversial facts (facts that contradict other sources, and any kind of criticism), and that they are no good for demonstrating notability. To consider one so requires a demonstration that this blog has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Someguy1221 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is of course acceptable to use the movie itself as source for the claims it makes. However, this article only uses the movie as a source (unlike Loose Change (film), which cites plenty of indepedent sources).  The LA Times article is unusable as a source, and the mentions is so brief that it can't be used to claim notability.  You can hardly call the Venus Project "independent", as it is pitched as the "solution" to the monetary "problem".  We can't stare into the crystal ball and predict notability.  If there are new sources later, you can always take it to WP:DRV. --Phirazo (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What about Fresco's Website? check it out: Jacque Fresco's website says that Fresco's Venus Project will be included in the movie, and he will attend the premiere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't there any independent sources? So far we have the film, a festival where the film was shown, and someone whose work is featured in the film. Are there any sources that don't benefit from promoting the film in some way? A  ni  Mate  21:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not yet, but I suspect there will be. I think it's fair to PREDICT that the NOTABILITY of this article will grow. After all, the first film is the most downloaded video on the net, and has magazine articles/Festival Awards and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we actually don't predict things here. That's actual policy. Also, if there are magazine articles, why aren't they being used as sources for the article? If there were reliable sources in the article, this debate wouldn't be happening. A  ni  Mate  21:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh...ok, I understand. Well, This Los Angeles Times article discuses the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good start. Now, if we can find something reliable that actually discusses the film's content, we might be able to salvage this article. A  ni  Mate  22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Removal of the Section Critical to the Movie I was surprised to see that the section I added about criticisms of the movie was removed. By removing references critical to the movie some people are trying to make the point that references to the movie only portray a positive attitude towards the movie. There are plenty of balanced opinions regarding this movie on the Internet and these opinions are as valid as those from any paid journalist from legacy newspapers and magazines because an opinion will always be an opinion and is by nature subjective. The opinion of what is relevant, reliable, etc will always be subjective too. Blogs are just not recognized as reliable and this needs to change. The fact that this movie is not mainstream enough to justify mainstream media coverage is not a valid reason to deny coverage in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia deletion policies. uiteoi (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So your argument is basically reliable sources aren't necessary for this article? Or is it that all blogs should be considered reliable sources? A  ni  Mate  02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe what Uiteoi means is that, just as not all mainstream sources are reliable, not all blogs are Unreliable. That has truth to it. Nevertheless, I still believe that we don't need a second-hand source that doesn't profit from the film. The Film exists. It is notable. It's notability will grow. It deserves an article. Period. Let's stop arguing and start looking for good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.144.172 (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That is clearly an argument better left for WP:RS/N, not here. Unfortunately, what you assert as consensus is at odds with Wikipedia policy, which is to delete or merge articles until and unless they have reliable sources, regardless of the number of partisans who advocate otherwise. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dead horse delete as original research and advertising. WillOakland (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a notable movie! It won best feature artivist spirit at Artivist Film Festival! Stop nagging! Please let us digg into this movie sources instead. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Have changed your keep to a comment; you already !voted; in fact, your comment was essentially identical. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve.The movie won an award. Not sure why this is even being debated.  Give the article a chance, it has only just been released.Zenbabyhead (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep- The film exists, and covers an important topic. The information in the article is concise and pertinent. Why this is being considered for deletion is beyond me... :  ViperBlade   Talk!! 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the author(s) of these articles are fanatical in keeping out any criticism of the video thus it is serving a biased advertising and promotional agenda. I wonder if the author(s) involved in starting tehse articles are the creators of the zeitgeist video? I can be persuaded to change my mind to keep if criticism of the video is allowed. We can't have high standards of peer reviewed criticism like you would for say an article on aids or some medical article when we are talking about an original research google video riddled with biases and misinformation.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:35, 11 October 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.