Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Year (film)

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Year (film)

This is the Walter Cruttenden-sponsored movie from the Binary Research Institute where the Binary model of equinox precession is put forward. All three articles are up for deletion.

I couldn't find any proof for the movie being aired by the PBS as the entry says. Pilatus 16:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete said it was voicedover by James Earl Jones. I smell a hoax here - cannot verify from google. Will vote keep if this can be verified. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this attempt to have all three articles deleted seems to be a bad faith campaign by rogue elements to censor views that are alternative from the mainstream and to silence anyone and anything that deviates from their deeply held gospel of their one and only brand of science religion. It is so transparent. As to the narrator, yes, it is James Earl Jones, I have the DVD and he narrates throughout. And it was shown on PBS stations in California, not sure about other parts of the country. Posted by IP 65.9.158.81, haven't registered yet.
  • Comment - to the person who placed the above, please sign your vote if you want it to count. 23skidoo 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I don't know if PBS showed it, but the DVD is for sale on Amazon. 23skidoo 17:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would call this self-promotion, as the anonymous editor has almost exclusively made contributions to Walter Cruttenden and the Binary Research Institute, whose ideas are put forward in the movie. Wikipedia isn't a medium for spamming or gaining a high Google rank. Pilatus 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hello, it is me, the big bad "anonymous editor". I'm sorry I have offended so many. I just haven't gotten around to registering an account yet. Though I doubt that will stop the insults from coming, or keep the vandals from vandalizing my work. Once again, for the record, I have nothing to do with this organization, I've never even so much as exchanged an e-mail with them or with Mr. Cruttenden. I just simply believe in the theory and would like to see it someday either proved or disproved. That's all. I first read about it more than 10 years ago in the book The Holy Science by Swami Sri Yukteswar, (which I think was the first mention ever of it in the Western World, as far as I know), that's why I added the bit I did to his article, which Pilatus promply deleted, as he follows me around deleting whatever I write. Apparently the fear that I might be connected to this organization (I am not) or worse, that I might be Mr. Cruttenden (I'm not) strikes fear in a lot of people's hearts. I'm sorry I have offended the sensibilities of so many. Posted by IP 65.9.158.81, haven't registered yet.
• Keep per 23skidoo. I'll delete the PBS mention though as that's what I was referencing as dubious (it can always be re-added later if it is verified). Not a speedy keep though :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggested speedy because IMO it fits all criteria for being kept as per precedent with other film articles. 23skidoo 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I was just pointing out that this was not really a bad-faith nomination as that's what speedy keeps are generally for. It obviously fits criteria for keep now. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep Dlyons493 19:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Being available for purchase on amazon is not verificaton of notability. There are lots of self-published books for sale on amazon, but we don't want them. Or do you think that we should have an article on every single book and film sold at amazon? This is self-promotion, pure and simple. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising of pseudoscientific, unverifiable original research. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• In line with my other votes, Delete. It's a non-notable crackpot theory, spread by a non-notable crackpot with too much money, who used that money to produce a vanity DVD that, for some reason, may or may not have aired on PBS. In all seriousness, these all need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

P. S. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Great Year aired on PBS on January 28, 2004, per KOCE Huntington Beach, CA 23skidoo 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I thought a while about this. Basically no one can find a source for the PBS claim other than message board posts and statements from the organization, which leaves it highly suspect. Without the PBS claim its just another DVD. Would support a Merge to binary research institute if it survives the VfD. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Same thing (my God, this is insane). If this discussion is about the article about THE DOCUMENTARY FILM, then I would suggest it be kept. If the pseudoscientific theory his "Binary Research Institute" doesn't deserve a place at Wikipedia for being original research, or not enough mainstream, or not sufficiently recognized... well, then the article about that theory deserves being deleted, but this stub... how does it promote a POV? It merely states what the film is about, who produced it and who narrates it... Now I've registered (BattleTroll)
  • A film produced by the subject in order to promote the subject's crackpot theory does not deserve an article in an encycloedia. ***User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • • It does deserve its entry when it's sufficiently well known. Instead of finger-pointing on all sides we should ask ourselves how well know it in fact is. Amazon gives a sales rank of 18000. How much is that? Considering the fact that Amazon quotes a delivery estimate of 3 to 4 weeks I'd guess that it doesn't sell that well. Pilatus 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Where are you seeing 3 to 4 weeks for shipping on Amazon? I'm looking at it right now here and it says "Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours Only 2 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)." Earthian 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Seems they received new stock. Anyway, I tried to find movies with a similar sales figure in Amazon. Looking at the section DVD→Independently Distributed→Documentary ordered by sales figure these are titles that come up on page 4: Manchester United 1001 Goals (sales rank 11973), The Complete Massage Pack: Basic & Professional Massage Therapy (# 14751), Open Mic - Dave Chappelle (#13881), Complete Taekwondo Kicking (# 10497). Any questions about the impact of your movie? Pilatus 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep simply because I find the deletionist attitude on all three related articles to be extremely oppressive. It has already been verified that these three individual articles are notable and based upon an existing Binary model of equinox precession. Piecraft 01:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The contention has been made that these articles are notable, it has not been "verified". User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The contention has been made by some participants that these articles are notable. Pilatus 02:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I see nothing but assertions of notability, apart for one sole reason: it is said to be notable because the Binary Research Institute produced a DVD. That's verifiable, but not very compelling. Did I miss something? Has other evidence of notability been presented? Has the DVD been reviewed by a science magazine? Did it ever air on national television? Has the theory been presented in any print publication not directly associated with the Binary Research Institute? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. I echo the comments of Piecraft, the delitionist attitude is extremely oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 15:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian
  • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: although I have as yet been unable to find a PBS airdate for this (I am seeing signs it may have been aired as an episode of another program), and PBS stations don't tend to archive their listings online, I have found reference to the documentary being shown at the Southern California Writers' Conference sometime in early October 2005.[1] The film was also nominated for a CINE Golden Eagle Award [2].
  • Comment - I got curious about this when I saw the rabidness with which they are trying to get it deleted. I did a google search, and there are many mentions of it being shown on PBS. A search on groups.google.com turns up this, where a person wrote about it after seeing it on PBS: The Great Year and The Wheel of Time in 2004. One thing I will say about those who are looking for it on the PBS website, I think PBS only keeps webpages about specials that they produce, or their affiliates around the country. This wasn't produced by PBS, that might be why there isn't mention of it on their website.Earthian 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each. Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Try not to take it personally. It's not fair, but it's done for fairly good pracical reasons.

There is a longstanding tradition in Articles for Deletion of pointing out remarks left by users without accounts, and users with very, very new accounts--specifically users who have made very few edits except to matters closely related to an AfD. The reason for this is that a) because of WIkipedia's openness and anonymity, there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether the same person is casting multiple votes under different identities; b) it frequently occurs to people that this is possible, and virtually all Wikipedians believe that "sockpuppets" are very common in AfD, and virtually all Wikipedians believe that it is frequently possible to recognize them; c) ignoring sockpuppet votes is a matter of judgement; d) ignoring votes by not-logged-in users or very new user accounts is generally accepted as a reasonably neutral guideline. It's not fair to legitimate users with IP-address or very-recently-created accounts.

It is the vote that is being ignored, not the comments that accompany the vote. Wikipedia is probably the least authoritarian organization you are likely to find. If you make a cogent comment in AfD, your comments will influence the subsequent discussion, no matter whom you are. Since creating a Wikipedia account does not require disclosure of any personal information at all--not so much as an email address--everybody in Wikipedia is judged by the identity they create by themselves by their writings within Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'd like to remind everyone that the subject under discussion is this article, about a particular film, not this article, about a hypothesis. The latter half of this article doesn't address the film, which leaves a stub that amounts to vanity/advertising about a documentary of debated legitimacy and notability. As such, in accordance with WP:NOT Sec. 1.4.3, it ought to be deleted. The Literate Engineer 22:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Nom and Literate Engineer --JAranda | yeah 21:39, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.