Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votergate

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. Sufficient evidence has been provided that these films do not meet notability guidelines, and arguments for inclusion have not provided sufficient sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votergate

Delete as a non-notable, advertisment collection of films. Tbeatty 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominiator--Tbeatty 06:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article now has (slightly) more content, with more coming. There are now no links to sales sites, and the videos have ALWAYS been available for free. I STRONGLY object to any articles concerning voting rights, voting fraud, voting suppression, etc, being deleted before the elections of Nov 7, 2006. Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any political platform. If you wish to advertise to voters in one country's elections, you must do it elsewhere. Uncle G 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as an attack page, itself. Still not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Who is supposedly attacked? If there was no basis for speedy delete as an attack in the AfD for "Clinton Chronicles" then that argument fails here too, and it should turn on notability. I do not see in the article sales figures, or figures for number of downloads or number of DVDs in circulation, or mainstream mention as was used as arguments to keep the aforementioned film of the other political flavor recently. Is this related in some way to the HBO film to be shown Nov 2? If there is "more content coming" after 2 years, then bring it on. Edison 18:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable films, not an advertisement (judging by the current article revision), clearly not an attack page. A politically-motivated nomination for deletion would be a clear violation of Wikipedia spirit and policy. Auto movil 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not speedy though. I don't think this meets the speedy requirement of an attack page. It is however a film with no external sourcing to demonstrate any sort of notability. The only thing I can find is that it apparently screened at the 2004 Hampton International Film Festival. To me that isn't sufficient to prove this film is notable. Considering the lack of any external sourcing demonstrating notability and the fact that the only real reason being advanced to keep runs counter to WP:NOT a soapbox, I think this is a clear case for deletion.--Isotope23 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. One screening [1], no awards, being distributed by the makers (see distributors), no wide release, no theatre release at all actually. The page is also highly unsourced and unverified, so per WP:V as well. --NuclearZer0 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 55,000 Google hits ought to furnish notability in the absence of any approved guidelines governing films. I don't have a dog in this race, but I think we all know what the notability guidelines were set up to achieve: Filtering out trivial stuff like YouTube segments and student films, while preventing deletions of films that have some meaure of past or current relevance. Additionally, when liberals or conservatives attempt to delete articles they don't agree with, the community suffers. Auto movil 20:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That same community suffers when liberals and conservatives attempt to keep non notable articles to push a POV. 55,000 articles does not reflect the movie does it? considering many of those do not even mention the movie. Also its 575 unique items and many of those simply refer to the controversy the movie was named after, not vice versa. --NuclearZer0 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to POV with you. You guys have an edit history, and if you want to gather to vote for deletion on an article that's counter to your political opinions, it's your responsibility to make neutral decisions. Auto movil 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Not sure how you POV with someone, or who "you guys are". I also see your only arguement for notability is google hits, I countered that, feel free to debate me on the merits of my arguement. --NuclearZer0 23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
          • To rephrase from somewhat idiomatic English: I'm not interested in pursuing a discussion on POV, however it is the case that several voters here have similar -- and indeed overlapping -- edit histories, in which politics opposed to those of the film seem to play a substantial part. My Google search, perhaps using different terms, turns up what appears to be over 55,000 hits for the film. Auto movil 23:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • 535 unique hits, mainly blogs and adverts it seems. Further as Morton points out below, it fails Notability (films). I am not interested in discussing POV either, you seem to be the only one bringing it up repeatedly however. --NuclearZer0 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and doesn't meet any of the notability requirements listed in Wikipedia:Notability (films). Morton devonshire 02:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NuclearZero GabrielF 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Auto movil. Plenty of ghits for "votergate movie". Seems about as strong a case as my recent (successful) keep vote to keep the Clinton Chronicles. Note that the Wikipedia:Notability (films) is only a proposal, which means it does not have consensus. Clinton Chronicles didn't meet it either. Derex 07:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  So you feel many google hits is enough for a movie to warrant an article on Wikipedia? Would think include many youtube videos? --NuclearZer0 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Ignoring Zer0 per my policy.[2] Derex 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  I hope that closing admin takes that under advisement, this user only has "google hits" as a determination of ntoability. We all know the youtube flood gate that would open. --NuclearZer0 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment That's not the case. 1) The film was shown at at least one major festival, and is commercially available. 2) Your Google search seems to produce rather different results from other Google searches, and a link would be appreciated. 3) The 'YouTube floodgate' implies that professionally-made, budgeted independent films with a festival presence are indistinguishable from videos that kids make at home with camcorders. I believe there's a clear and obvious distinction which need not be explained. Auto movil 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Conclude your search then cycle through the number of pages until there are no more, tell me how many are listed at the top entries C - X of Y. That X is the total of unique hits, meaning if one page mentions it 8000 times, then you will get 8000, however 1 entry. Hits and unique hits are different. This also counts for pages on a domain, so if we use livejournal as an example, it will consolidate all of the livejournal hits into 1 entry, that is a unique hit. Hopefully that helps you understand how google works a little better and why the google test is not used. --NuclearZer0 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment on Google Methodology' - I believe I understand the way Google works. Please see here for Wikipedia's 'Google Test' page, which explans why such techniques are not recommended. Auto movil 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Its good we were able to come to an agreement that Ghits are not valid in determining notability, as the article itself constantly points out. --NuclearZer0 19:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  It would be good in that case to strike your argument about '575 unique Google hits,' which is based on methodology specifically warned against by the Google Test article. In comparison, the figure of 55,000 ghits represents an uncontroversial and indeed near-universal observation in regard to VfDs. I don't believe you're claiming that ghits are inadmissible on principle. Because if so, that's quite a long and involved argument with far-reaching consequences, VfD-wise. Auto movil 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Actually I am, the article you linked on the google test explains repeatedly that its not a fair assessment of notability. Please read it more carefully. Thank you. Also considering you never actually debated my points in relation to release, money earned or anything else in notability (films) I will take this back and forth as over, and quite pointless as it seems your own proof google test says its not all too reliable either. --NuclearZer0 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• (many colon marks) I believe my argument is that in addition to 55,000 ghits, the film was shown at at least one major festival, was budgeted and professionally made, and as such is not equivalent to a YouTube video. You seem to want to 'win' this discussion, and I am perfectly willing to let you do so. However, it would be good if you could state your argument for deletion once and plainly, rather than using 'delete' as a constant around which different and contradictory arguments may orbit. Auto movil 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you are talking about, you actually replied to my arguement. I will lay it out again if its not clear: Non notable. One screening [1], no awards, being distributed by the makers (see distributors), no wide release, no theatre release at all actually. The page is also highly unsourced and unverified, so per WP:V as well Hope that helps, it is listed above. As for winning, AfD is for discussion on the topic, this isnt a vote, so debating your point, ghits being a useful guage of notability is perfectly valid, however if you do not want to defend that point I understand and will not reply to you anymore. --NuclearZer0 12:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a succinct summary. Thank you. My disagreement comprises three points: 1) Participation in a major film festival is notable, and is not fairly described as 'one screening,' which implies that the film was only screened once, somewhere. In fact, there seem to be multiple screenings. 2) Ghits are generally considered a quick-and-dirty test of notability, despite claims made in this discussion that they carry no weight at all. This is an uncontroversial statement that would ordinarily be regarded as a priori true. My position is that it is inconsistent to create an estimate of 575+/- unique hits (from a total of 55,000) as an argument toward deletion, and then to disallow ghits entirely when such methodology is shown to be faulty. 3) Re: distribution, theatre release, etc., yes, you may have a point. Auto movil 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps those film festivals are not widely recognized that the IMDB page does not often recognize them, some seem to be specifically guaged at that genre of work, meaning its not a industry film festival. If it was Cannes, I would think there would be a sense of notability, at least if it won an award. However appearing in festivals that are crafted for tis type of film is not the same as industry festivals like Cannes. The basic idea is notability, appearing at non-notable places does not increase that. As for the ghits arguement, sorry if you misunderstood me. I do not believe in the google test and attempted to argue on your basis before just dropping the bomb that the article itself says its not reliable. It was an attempt to reacha middleground, perhaps us stating its something to attribute but not establish, like a piece of the puzzle. However that went south. --NuclearZer0 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Google hits are essentially meaningless when it comes to determinations of notability. There is a reason why the Google test has never become an accepted guideline; because it is an inconsistant measure of notability. Quality of the sources is much more important than quantity. If you were to Google me, I get many, many more ghits than this movie; that still doesn't mean there needs to be an article about me.--Isotope23 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable spamvertisement, virtually unsourced. Disclosure I found this AfD from a link on User talk:BenBurch posted by User:Fairness And Accuracy For All - Crockspot 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). Jinxmchue 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a PROPOSED guideline, not yet approved or enacted, and I contend that any 'votes' using this as the only rationale must be thrown out. Fairness And Accuracy For All 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  As opposed to the "I heard of that" rule, or the google test? Why should this article stay if the movie was never released in theatres, had one showing at a smaller of the many film festivals, never won an award, was self distributed etc. Because you heard of it? That doesnt really satisfy a reason to have an encyclopedia article. --NuclearZer0 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  The only votes that get "thrown out" are those that are done by obvious sock accounts.--MONGO 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete completely not notable.--MONGO 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't appear to be notable, and the title is misleading - I assumed this was referring to an election scandal. The title should be Votergate (film) but the author didn't move it to such a title. SunStar Net 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In-person showings aren't the only test for notability. This film is being distributed primarily online, rather than in brick-and-mortar theaters. If someone creates an article about a serious documentary, I see no reason why we can't keep the article. A move to Votergate (film) would be called for only if we had another article at Votergate, but I could see moving it now on the theory that we might well have a more general article in the future. JamesMLane t c 01:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with the comments of JamesMLane above and would add the following. First, an observation: it is clear from the comments here that there is by no means any consensus about the deletion of this entry and that therefore it should be retained as is. Second, with regard to the handful of comments above alleging that this film is non-notable and/or political, I strongly disagree. Such comments run counter to the facts and the evidence is readily available on line and in the pages of the thousands -- that's right THOUSANDS -- of mainstream and alternative media articles, both in print and online, on the subject of electronic voting. The Votergate film series was the first to identify the security defects in touchscreen voting systems. These are systems that 80% of Americans will vote on this November. Votergate catalogued the 3 ways that the machines may be hacked: (1) physical; (2) smartcard; (3) central tabulation. These revelations provided the basis for numerous investigations and governmental reports, including the Carter-Baker Commission (a bi-partisan Commission). The aftershocks of this film are still being felt, and the issues raised by the film have been taken up by grassroots organizations (both partisan, non-partisan, and bi-partisan) across the country. It has been a rallying cry for election protection in this country. This film played an essential part in the fight for honest elections across the United States. (And, in light of the comments here I must again reiterate that honest elections implies an expressly non-political point of view.) The goal of this film is to have every American's vote count as cast. And, that is something that everyone who values knowledge, truth and the right to be heard -- whether American or not -- should support. In the final analysis, this film series deserves recognition and retention as an entry both for its prescience on the issue of voting systems and because it has served a purpose only the rarest of films achieve: it moved hundreds of thousands of people to action.Heat Miser 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)— Heat miser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment You make the claim that this movie started the entire movement to take a look into voting machines, I have never heard of it spoken as such, nor heard of the movie prior to reading this article. What I ask of you is a WP:RS and WP:V source stating that this movie started this movement, if you can produce some, enough to show its the general belief of media outlets, then I will surely chagne my vote. If you cannot, then that will speak for itself. --NuclearZer0 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Please re-read my post. I have not made "the claim that this movie started the entire movement to take a look into voting machines." Rather, I made the claim that this film publicized the movement and moved hundreds of thousands of people to action after these issues were disclosed. So, first, I would agree with Auto movil below as to the fact that Bev Harris was one of the first ones to start this movement. I am not aware of her "Black Box Voting" films. (Bev does however make several strong appearances in the Votergate films, and these films are historical records of her work.) Nonetheless, if there are such films, I would submit that they also would be entitled to a separate entry, since this is the singlemost important issue facing our democracy. If people's votes are not counted honestly, then we do not have a democracy. Second, I note your certain contributions to wiki so let us look at your entry for Timbaland. You must feel that Timbaland is notable and worthy of an entry here on wiki, or else you would not have wasted your time. Surely we can agree that Votergate had at least as much impact on American society in the last 2 years as Timbaland and Dr. Noyd? Third, in response to your comment to Auto movil above, Votergate is clearly not just a "YouTube" video (although the director/producers seem to now be savvy to using YouTube as an avenue for advertising). It is in the IMDB database. If there is time for me to find additional sources before this comment period closes, I will do so, but a simple Google search will turn up a plethora of reviews, entries and media about the films, including the IMDB entry. Finally, I am of course interested in continuing this dialogue with you, but I must note again that at this point there is clearly no consensus here on deletion, which is the standard set by wiki for removal.Heat Miser;15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  CommentOk so the new claim is "and moved hundreds of thousands of people to action after these issues were disclosed", do you haev a source for this that satisfys WP:RS and WP:V? else this is all just your personal opinion on the movies and not really anything that cna be added to the article to allow it to meet requirements. Also since you do not know, IMDB is now editable by readers. Further I am not sure what you see as no concensus, so far the only arguement made is lots of ghits and claims that it motivated hundreds of thousands, which I would like to see a source for, and your bickering at my edit history, which i remind you, discuss the content, not the editor. --NuclearZer0 12:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment This is not MY "new" claim. This is the claim I made in my original statement, that you deliberately misinterpreted in an attempt to make my case more difficult to prove. Similarly, the standard you have set here also overreaches. As shown by Derex above with regard to the Clinton Chronicles, the standard for notability you have set is not the standard for material here. You have moved from one argument to the other in an attempt to provide a basis for deletion. Why are you doing this? I don't know. I do know that your entry on Timbaland suffers from the same defects you are trumpeting here. And, no, I did not give the example of Timbaland to get into your edit history. Only you seem to be concerned about that. Rather, I sought to use your entry on Timbaland in order to communicate with you by using an example you were familiar with. I did so in the interest of moving this discussion forward. I ask you, if you feel Timbaland is worthy of entry here, why not Votergate? This brings up another point. Timbaland is ancient history. The Votergate films are a continuing series of films about a seminal issue of importance to the maintenance of real democracy in the world's only superpower. They are continuing to be produced as we speak. They will continue to have impact. They are therefore not "history" but reality. They deserve inclusion for this reason as well. Heat Miser 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Do you havea source? this is a simple question, you may grand statements at the impact this video had, can you please post sources supporting this and stop attempting to harp on my edit history, its a sad attempt. This article lacks something showing notability, if you have these sources add them, else you are wasting everyones time by posting such long diatribes. --NuclearZer0 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment With regard to your request for sources, please see my post below. To summarize, if you go to Google News, and search "votergate" you will see that a number of stories pop up, some as recently as this past week. The articles reference VoterGate films and indicate that one of the main touchscreen voting manufacturers, Diebold, is still feeling its impact. Here is a link, and an excerpt is quoted below: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iu1kJn0r6mbsE3T+LOOImOQ%3D%3DHeat Miser 13:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  That souce doe snot say hundreds of thousands were motivated to do anything based on this movie, please provide an accurate source, I ask you to review them first as it may seem like attempts to misguide people. --NuclearZer0 21:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  CommentI think Bev Harris's Black Box Voting films are the foundational ones, although I'm not totally up on the topic. There might be a move or a merge possible here. Auto movil 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and what not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Wow reading this thread is education....talk about political agendas. Is this what wiki is about? Seems to me we are supposed to be the world's online encylopedia. It is obvious from ghits and google that thousands of people have seen this film. In 2004, this was the first film to actually use cameras to videotape vote counting and tabulation in the United States. Now people are videotaping those procedures across the U.S. That's sounds pretty notable to me. If someone can expand the entry and revise it further, this is exactly the kind of information that belongs here. User:Martin Mulll 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.161.20.135 (talk)

• Fake signatures are not helpful. [3] GRBerry 03:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There are no independent reliable sources used to support any claim to notability. There is no compelling reason to believe any of the claims. In fact, there are no independent sources used at all. A google serach for Votergate but excluding Wikipedia turns up a broken link in the top 10 results, strong evidence that nobody we can use as a reliable source has noticed this. GRBerry 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Your statement is demonstrably false. I have just conducted a Google search for the term "votergate" and found an entry for the Votergate films at the industry-recognized IMDb. I invite everyone here to visit IMDb and read their database inclusion criteria. There can be little doubt that IMDb meets the definitinon of an independent source. So, with regard to your first statement: there IS in fact at least one independent source on the very first Google search page. With regard to the broken link, I don't understand your argument. Are you seriously suggesting that a broken link in a Google search result be used as "strong evidence" for something? Heat Miser 12:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  IMDB is edited partially by registered accounts now, further an IMDB entry doesnt mean notability, unless you are stating we should also act as an IMDB mirror. --NuclearZer0 18:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  CommentYou mean like Wikipedia? IMDb has clear database inclusion criteria. It clearly qualifies as an independent source. I invite everyone here to review those criteria. Simply because it is "edited partially by registered accounts" does not in any way reflect on its prominent position in the industry as a respected and authoritative source. I in fact submit that IMDb is run by people far more expert than those here on the subject of whether or not a film is notable or has an impact, and they take that responsibility very seriously. Finally, are you suggesting that wikipedia, because it is editable by the people, is somehow not authoritative or independent? Your comments would destroy the entire notion of an independent, worldwide online encyclopedia compiled by a Peircean-like community. Heat Miser 13:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  You are still skipping the question, do you have a source for your claims above, that the movie motivated hundreds of thousands to pay attention to the topic. I see you can post long long paragraphs, but can you answer this question? --NuclearZer0 21:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source by our standards WP:RS because anyone can edit it and there is no fact checking process prior . IMDb is not a reliable source for the same reason, if I understand IMDb properly. GRBerry 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, just to be clear, according to your link, this is a wiki guideline, although there is a box on the link that claims it is the subject of dispute. Nonetheless, I just reviewed it, and I can tell you unequivocally that I believe in sourcing and verification. You sound like you agree with the guideline and believe in this too. I will therefore attempt to provide you with some reliable sourcing regarding IMDb's authoritative status in the industry, and also regarding how IMDb operates (you have assumed it operates in the same manner, but in fact it operates differently than wiki, and the differences are critical to this discussion). First, I must reiterate that IMDb is an authoritative source and well-accepted in the motion picture industry. Here is an independent, reliable source for that proposition: http://www.laweekly.com/general/deadline-hollywood/do-you-imdb/9084/. A simple Google of IMDb will turn up numerous similar articles about IMDb's history, bios of its founder, and details about its operations. I invite you to educate yourself about this reputable, established, authoritative, reliable source before you comment further so we can have a meaningful discussion. In a nutshell, IMDb is similar to wikipedia in that it will allow members to submit material, but it is not identical. There are significant differences, and these differences relate specifically to how editing is executed. Unlike wiki, at IMDb, new material and revisions are submitted to a board of editors who are primarily based in Seattle. The LA Weekly article discusses this as well: http://www.laweekly.com/general/deadline-hollywood/do-you-imdb/9084/. Thus, as you can read in the article, no revisions are carried out by the community without prior review, fact-checking, and judgment FOR NOTABILITY, ACCURACY and other criteria by VERY savvy industry professionals. There can be little doubt that if a motion picture is listed at IMDb, especially one that is 2 years old, it has been vetted, the information is accurate AND it has been found to be notable.Heat miser 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Just wanted to add that if you go to Google News, you will see that a number of stories on VoterGate pop up, some as recently as this past week. The articles reference VoterGate films and indicate that one of the main touchscreen voting manufacturers, Diebold, is still feeling its impact. These are clearly independent sources that attest to the fact that the primary film in this series is still having a strong and clearly notable impact over 2 years after its release. For example, one article in the Hollywood Reporter is entitled: "HBO vetoes Diebold's docu request" By Brooks Boliek Nov 1, 2006 and here are the relevant passages:

• "Diebold also writes that the film is "directed by the

  directors of 'VoterGate' and contains much of the same

  material. 'VoterGate' was produced with special thanks

  to Susan Sarandon and the Streisand Foundation."

• The official "VoterGate" site lists Jeremy Manning and

  Stanley Weithorn as that film's executive producers.

  The Internet Movie Database listed Ole Schell as its

  director. IMDb also lists "VoterGate" as "Hacking

  Democracy's" working title in the U.K.

• HBO contends that Diebold has confused the two films.

• "It appears the film Diebold is responding to is not

  the film HBO is airing," Cusson said.

• Find this article at:

  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3iu1kJn0r6mbsE3T+LOOImOQ%3D%3D"

• I note that articles from the UK and Forbes, among others, may also be found by searching the term "votergate" at GoogleNews. Heat Miser 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please answer the question, you make claims like hundreds of thousands were motivated, yet you didnt provide a source, I am still waiting on one please. Also the fact that IMDB is wrong, is a good reason why its also not reliable. Thank you for proving that point. Also please note votergate was a term for the situation before the movie came out. --NuclearZer0 21:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Friend you have now mischaracterized at least two of my posts. Either you have a problem with reading comprehension, or you are deliberately misstating my written words in an attempt to railroad this community into deleting this entry. Why? If you actually read my post above, or the article itself, you will find that it DOES NOT say that IMDb was wrong, rather, it said that the company, Diebold, was wrong and HBO/IMDb were correct. I stand by the fact that IMDb is an independent reliable source of experts on film. The folks there, of course, watched the film prior to ruling on its inclusion. Have you even watched the Votergate film? By your own admission you have not. And yet you would delete an entry here about it. Again, I must ask why? Is it hurting you to have this entry? What is your deal? You still have not responded at all to my Timbaland example. Are you interested in reaching a consensus here on what to do? Why does Timbaland deserve an entry and Votergate does not? Finally, as to your last point, whether or not Votergate was around as a term prior to the creation of the film has no bearing on the notability of the film or this entry. Was "Godfather" in use as a term prior to the release of "The Godfather?" Maybe that entry should be expunged as well? Heat Miser 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  I didnt say you said IMDB was wrong, reading comprehension indeed. I am stating IMDB was wrong, Votergate and Hacking Democracy are two different movies, Diebold mistook one for the other, the movie the article is about, is Hacking Democracy, not Votergate. Also IMDB is not a independant reliable source ran by film experts, I am not sure what gave you taht idea, can you name these experts on film you believe run IMDB? I am sure you cannot. Since you cannot grasp this concept I will reiterate it one more time for you, The movie is not notable for anything, there is nothing that makes it stand out, its has not broken any records, screened anywhere important, been released in theatres (which still wouldnt be enough), its not notable, the more you go on about it leading hundreds of thousands to be inspired to the topic and refuse to give a source stating it, instead go on a tangent about something new and my edit history instead of providing such a source which you have been asked for now 3-4 times, the worse it makes your point look, which is that its notable cause it inspired people, something you have yet to prove, prove it already instead of writing paragraph long diatribes. Also I ask you not make foolish comparisons between Godfather the movie and the term Godfather, since if you bothered to read what I wrote, I was stating the phenomenon came before the movie, hence the google hits, its not a rationalization for deletion, its a rationalization for the high google count, which itself does not signify notabilit,y per its own article google test. Now before you write another diatribe and again attempt to harp on my edit history, how about you provide that source. --NuclearZer0 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  First, with regard to IMDb: IMDb is a reliable source by any definition, for reasons I stated in my response to GRBerry above. To summarize, IMDb is not a user-edited site. It is run by VERY savvy industry professionals and any new or revised material is FIRST submitted to those professionals BEFORE it is posted. The professionals who run IMDb can be readily identified and sourced by running a search for "IMDb" on Google. They are "players" and their large editorial staff is well-financed by their corporate parent, Amazon. The article I cited for GRBerry is one of many that comes up in the search results. IMDb is therefore reliable and it is both relevant and probative of Votergate's notability that it is listed there. Second, with regard to the Hollywood Reporter source, I respond to your comments here in my post on Smeelgova's thread below and I would ask that we continue dialogue on this source there. To summarize, the fact that Diebold thought that a new Votergate was coming out, and that they acted with strong-arm tactics to stop it shows the great extent of Votergate's impact and how notable Diebold believes it to be. Finally, to reinforce the fact that it is not just Diebold who believes Votergate was notable and worthwhile, and also to put to rest this "notability" debate, I include this link to Alexa: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=votergate.tv If you examine the 3 year time frame, easily accessed by clicking the "3yr" tab, you will see that over 60 million -- that's right -- 60 MILLION people accessed the website showing portions of the Votergate film in the days leading up to and following the November 2004 election. I hope we can agree that Alexa.com is a reliable source, and that this readily demonstrates the notability and incredible significance of this film. You are correct that I originally said "hundreds of thousands." But it was actually over 60 MILLION people. Even I did know it was that high. I hope you will agree that this reliable Alexa.com source, plus the previously-mentioned 55,000 ghits sourcing mentioned by Auto movil and Derex above, puts the notability issue vis-a-vis Votergate to rest. Since Votergate is clearly notable, and furthermore, people are working to fill out the entry to bring it up to wiki standards, I would ask you to revise your "delete" opinion and change it to a "strong keep." Heat miser 07:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  I am going to ignore you now, you still have not provided that source and wrote another massive diatribe which is kind of annoying, please read google test for more information on why its not a reliable sign of notability. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  Also you must be new to certain internet phrases, but hits do not equal people. A hit is registered when a page is reached, so if the site has 50 pages and 5 people visit and hit all 50 pages then they generated 1250 hits. If one of those people come back and review all 50 pages again, you are not at 1500 hits, get it? Hits do not symbolize individual people, nor do they even symbolize 1 person per visit. So 1 person can check out the site everyday for a week generating millions of hits on their own. --NuclearZer0 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• From the producer... Hello Wiki!! I am a producer of Votergate, the film in question. Permit me to thank all of your for your passionate arguments on both sides of this debate. Everyone involved in our documentary film believe in what you are doing as active members, and we use wikipedia regularly, even if we do so on a drive-by basis and (like me) are not "members" or regular contributors. So, thank you for your efforts to make this the best online encyclopedia. We truly believe it is a privilege to be included on your site at the moment. For several reasons, I would like to make the following contributions to this discussion and I hope this will bring about a positive discussion. Thank you for your consideration.

  A. As I documentary producer, I must do extensive research on my issues of interest, and this often includes documentary film history. I have used wikipedia over the years for film and cinema research on a variety of topics, and I plan to continue doing so. As a general matter, one of the most difficult topics to find information about is documentary. I have often been hard-pressed to find important information on obscure documentary topics that are nonetheless important to me as a film researcher, and as a film historian. Wikipedia has already made unbelievably important contributions in this area.

  B. I believe the category of documentary film is special. Often, documentary is shot on extremely low budgets, and distribution is extremely difficult. "Getting the word out" is also not easy. On the flip side, documentarians have produced some significant material about the human experience. Now, I'm sure by now some of you are singing "Cry Me A River", but my point is this: if Wikipedia is to be the world's encyclopedic resource, it seems that one of the best things it can do is retain significant information about a very underreported area of art with a high level of social importance.

  C. I don't believe that retaining information about documentary film, so long as it is accurate, will cost this site money or prestige. Far from it. As evidenced by a number of documentaries over the past few years, the category of documentary film is growing and I think wikipedia should be a resource for such films.

  D. I won't pretend to have an answer for how to distinguish a notable documentary from one of lesser quality. In these days of reality television and YouTube, such a distinction is likely to become more difficult, not less. In any event, I believe this to be a very important issue, and I pledge to stay involved with it.

  E. Turning to this debate specifically, I would make the following proposal and commitment to the Wikipedia community. (i) We would be wholly comfortable if the suggestion above to move our entry to Votergate (film) was approved. (ii) We would be willing to undertake the creation and buildout of an "Election Reform (films)" entry, where all the films on this subject, including ours, would be accurately described with the appropriate links. This would obviously be a longer term project and would include a great number of films over the last few decades.

  F. Finally, to clear up at least a few issues raised above. Votergate is entirely non-partisan. We premiered this film at the National Press Club in early October '04 and had both John McCain's campaign manager Trevor Potter from the Election Reform Institute, and folks from more left-of-center good government groups like Common Cause presenting at the same podium. We have footage from the event and the subsequent premieres that I would be happy to post at YouTube if you require sourcing. In addition, the film was accepted into and screend at both the Hamptons Film Festival and the Eureka Film Festival. It is certainly true that this is not on the level of "Sundance", but it is a well-established festival with significant respect in the industry. With regard to IMDb, we feel very lucky to be listed there. I can tell you with 100% certainty that IMDb is absolutely curated and it is difficult for indie documentaries to get on the site. We certainly felt that was an achievement.

  G. In conclusion, we feel documentaries of merit should be listed here at Wikipedia. I would suggest that acceptance in one or more film festivals, broadcast on television and budget size (ours was over $100K) could play a role in determining notability. In the end, it is my hope that Wikipedia will err on the side of being overly inclusive where documentary film is concerned, especially where issues of such importance are at stake. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to discussing this issue further with you all. Vgate Producer 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

  a) Wikipedia is not a repository of produced films, its not IMDB. As an encyclopedia it would lose any respect if it just turned into a repository of stuff, people looking for a film to watch should not goto an encyclopedia, they should goto IMDB, Blockbuster etc.

  b} Wikipedia currently does "retain significant information about a very underreported area of art with a high level of social importance", it has an article on documentaries, your own documentary doesn't fit this bill as its too specific and not about an art, but just a specific topic. However further, its not wikipedia job to promote anything including areas of art with little attention.

  c} As pointed out in point A, which is something I particularly feared was being argued by the other user, Wikipedia is not IMDB. Its not here to promote or expose anything and its not here to be a respository of every film ever made nor book printed etc.

  d) We have guidelines and proposed ones, you can read that WP:Notability (films), things such as awards would help, screenings, records, etc. This film particularly doesn't meet any of that.

  e) If you would like to create an article on the phenomenon of voter films then feel free to do that, this article however is not about that and its deletion or non-deletion would not be based on its creation or lack there of. Further per WP:RS and WP:V you would need sources that meet those requirements to discuss those films and the points in the article you attempt to right, remember to follow WP:OR.

  f) IMDB entries can be added by the readers, its not 100% "curated", there are also thousands of festivals world wide, determining notability by appearing in the non-notable ones does not work, an appearance at Sundance or Cannes would have went further, an award at one of them even further. However lacking even those leaves little left.

  g) Its already been established by the general concensus on Wikipedia that not all films deserve articles and surely not all documentaries of there being millions or varrying notability and quality. I keep hearing issues of importance, and that is a problem, as every documentary is created by someone thinking the issue is important, its very subjective, hence why criteria is based on notability, not subject.

  --NuclearZer0 01:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this definitely seems like a notable article that should be given time to be expanded upon. Smeelgova 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC).
• Comment the articles being added to the article to show notability all state that Diebold thought HBO was showing votergate, but they are showing hacking democracy, thats not a sign of notability. --NuclearZer0 10:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the commentary. I am not adding them to show notability. I am adding them because they are relevant articles to Votergate. Smeelgova 17:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

The topic of the articles are Hacking Democracy, to say they are relevant simply because they are mentioned, even though they arent the topic is not really of quality for External links. EL's are suppose to have information about the subject that the article does not, in this case that is not what is taking place. --NuclearZer0 20:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. First, I hope we can agree that Hollywood Reporter is a reliable, independent source. (If we cannot so agree, there are several other sources including Forbes Magazine that reported this story.) Second, if you read this article, you will see that Diebold, a multinational, extremely powerful, well-established, public company with billions of dollars (US) in revenue, actually was so affected by the material contained in Votergate, that it took it upon itself to invest significant resources in attempting to shut down a film that it THOUGHT was descendent from Votergate. In other words, Diebold believed, albeit mistakenly, that the HBO film WAS a new/revised Votergate. Diebold felt that they had to shut it down because it was so powerful and damaging to them, and they attempted to do so. If this is not an example of notability, I don't know what is. This particular source article relates directly to Diebold's corporate "state of mind" when they sent the cease and desist letter to HBO, and effectively demonstrates how powerful Votergate continues to be since its release 2 years ago. The Votergate revelations spoke truth-to-power and caused questioning of Diebold's shoddy and insecure system design by activists, legislators and election officials around the country, which in turn resulted in millions of dollars in lost Diebold contracts. Diebold could not afford another Votergate. Diebold could not let another Votergate see the light of day, and, believing that another Votergate was coming out, Diebold attempted to squash it with its full corporate armamentarium. You demand evidence of notability? This article has it in spades. Heat miser 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not for you to disagree with, we have policies and guidelines, read WP:EL. Thank you. All your insinuation on what Diebold thought is really out of place here. Please read WP:OR --NuclearZer0 11:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS, WP:NOTFILM, etc. Eluchil404 12:33, 7 November 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.