Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Coredesat 07:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was looking forward to being the admin who closes this debate, and not just to say Never repent, Harlequin! or The Revolution is Now!. In light of the above closer's noncomment close (and don't get me wrong: the majority of the hunderds of deletion debates I closed, at least as keept, were likewise minimalist or non commentary), I am taking the liberty of adding (yes, unconventionally), what would have been my closing comment, which consists of several interrelated, critical tenants.
First, this isn't merely "keep," this is unanimous keep; and I would have discounted Tom Harrison's opinion to delete, because as the sole dissenting voice (which we welcome), he carried the burden of responsibility to at least touching on what anyone else wrote.
The fact that this debate was resisted at deletion review is also a cause for concern about happenings there. I submit that anything, anything, that has been viewed millions of times, is automatically notable. Not to mention when this involves a two-hour piece of narrative. Hundreds of thousands is also, in my view, likewise notable (tens of thousands is more borderline on the notability threshold).
Of course, an entry can be deleted for being simply "promotional," and I mean that in the non ideological, spamvertisement sense. Which is clearly and unequivocally not the case here; I have seen the movie and it is rather obvious to me that the entry is, basically, a brief and incomplete summary of its contents. Now, I knew that the conspiracy label, de facto, lowers the notability of subjects. What is, however, surprising is how far it could be lowered; how detached from reality and how bureaucratized deletion review has become to relist an entry to which the word millions of (downloads) can be applied. It takes a lot of inertia, a lot of circumvention of common sense, I challenge, for deletion review regulars and the admin who closed that debate, specifically, to have us arrive at this. I hope this note is read and understood in the constructive spirit it was delivered, and I hope both new and veteran editors find it to be of value. El_C 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist, the Movie

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie (second nomination)
Zeitgeist, the Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was deleted at its prior AfD for lack of sources. After several DRVs, a new revision with new citations was composed in userpage. DRV permitted a recreation and relisting here in light of this new information. Deletion remains on the table for notability concerns. It hardly seems necessary to add that the ideology (and factual accuracy) of the film is irrelevant. Only the article's compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is at issue. Xoloz 16:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to closer - I reopened this AfD after a non admin close. In view of the history of this article, it's AfD and DRV, this AfD should stay open until at least 16:13, 18 November 2007 to allow all those interested in commenting to comment. -- Jreferee t/c 23:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — I manage the Zeitgeist Facebook Group, which now has over 18,000 members. Regardless of the accuracy of content of the film, it deserves a Wikipedia page. The film has been seen by MILLIONS of individuals (Google Video 5.2 million). Most of them will be heading to Google the film and expecting a Wikipedia page to pop up and explain what they just saw. -Edward Greve 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it does seem necessary to add that the ideology and accuracy of the film is irrelevant, because it forms the basis of many deletes. Fact is, this film--whether one likes it or not--is a phenomenon on the Internet. If Wikipedia is to be relevant, a proven phenomenon (even if one looks at the 2,000,000 downloads on YouTube) needs to be discussed. Precisely because the film may be inaccurate. This is the place to educate those 2,000,000 people who watch it what, exactly, are the criticisms of it. We are here to educate, and by denying a place at the table for something that may be inaccurate simply because we don't like it does a disservice to the goals of this project. --David Shankbone 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — unlike the last dozen or so times, this article seems to follow our guidelines for notability and the article is concise and reasonably neutral. --Haemo 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - With so much reliable source material, the topic meets WP:N. The present article seems to accurately reflect the collective of the independent reliable source coverage of the film. That is Wikipedia concern. From Wikipedia's perspective, it is irrelevant on how the independent reliable sources choose to cover a topic. If the collective of the independent reliable source coverage is POV, then Wikipedia need only accurately reflect that POV coverage for the Wikipedia article to meet the WP:NPOV policy. If the film itself reflects ideology, accuracy, inaccuracy, fantasy, hoax, etc., that too is irrelevant because the film itself is not independent of the topic per WP:N and not a valid Wikipedia source of information for the Wikipedia article. In other words, the truth of the film content itself is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article on the film. If the film served as a source of material for the Wikipeia article, the Wikipedia article would be nothing more than a WP:SOAPBOX for the film. Since the present article seems to accurately reflect the collective of the independent reliable source coverage of the film, WP:A no longer is an issue. -- Jreferee t/c 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I concede that the ideology is not an argument for deletion, I still question the notability of the film. The only notability marks I still see are The Stranger (which I question as a very reliable source, although a very entertaining one), Irish Times (which more ridicules the film than anything), and Globe and Mail - which is a pay site. I reserve the right to change my mind here, but that's where I'm coming from at this moment. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you personally believe the film is not important/significant enough for there to be a Wikipedia article on the topic or are you saying that there is not enough reliable source material to justify a Wikipedia article on the topic? -- Jreferee t/c 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • At this point, it's more the reliable sources I think - I'm not sure that the source material is all that reliable, with the possible exception of David's note on the G&M below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Globe & Mail is the New York Times of Canada. Not being able to read its article seems a poor reason to discount it (would you do the same for a Wall Street Journal article). You are still deleting based upon your problems with the film, as opposed to whether it deserves coverage. I have problems with the with the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, but they still deserve coverage because its a...phenomenon. Three sources, two of which are very solid, pass the source sniff test. --David Shankbone 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind, switching to Keep per note from Pdelongchamp (below). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I presented the revised article to DRV so I guess this goes without saying. I did want to mention that you can easily find a free copy of the Globe and Mail article by searching it's title on Google. and just to confirm David's comment, yes, the globe is the largest national paper in canada. Pdelongchamp 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Kind of flopping-back-and-forth weak keep. I'm not thrilled with the sources; a look at both the Irish Times and Globe and Mail stories will indicate that they're both opinion pieces, not actual coverage, and the Stranger gives it all of three paragraphs. However, they're in major publications, and they do devote the entire column to the film, so it may edge through. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and someone might want to pre-emptively semiprotect this discussion, considering how the last one went... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm still kind of traumatized from that last one, but I think at this point it looks pretty safe. Cross your fingers, though. --Haemo 23:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. What the hell. I am having a little problem with the categorization, which seems to be pushing the envelope a bit. False flag operations seems a particularly inappropriate category. - Crockspot 00:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Looks like some kind soul agreed and fixed the categories. --Haemo 06:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    That would be me. I rarely wait around for someone else to do what I can do better myself. :) - Crockspot 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - demonstrates notability, insufficient reason to delete. Anchoress 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.197.244 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - A documentary is a documentary, regardless of it's mainstream acceptance and/or coverage. If it is important enough for ninjastrikeforce to write an article about how big brother-ish it is to delete this wikipedia article, then isn't that enough by itself to keep this? But seriously though, if every little internet meme gets to have an article that no one thinks twice about deleting, then why can't a controversial and thought provoking small budget documentary have the same respect? Tubeyes 12:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, a documentary is a documentary — but not necessarily a notable one. That's what we're discussing here — not whether other stuff exists or if it's thought-provoking. --19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well, to date 5,198,799 people have the watched the "official Google release", not to mention the various youtube versions, torrents and other alternative sources. It was reviewed by Jay Kinney

(ex-EiC/Publisher of Gnosis Magazine) in the Boing Boing magazine. [1] It is on 'The Internet Archive', which is a member of the American Library Association. Zeitgeist was covered in the NewTimes of San Luis Obispo County, California, which is the largest circulated paper in the region. [2] There is a review on Newsvine, which is owned by MSNBC. [3] Illuminati conspiracy theorist Wes Penre wrote a review. [4] The Irish Times wrote an article. [5] As well as the afore mentioned Canadian Globe and Mail article and a slew of conspiracy and religious websites, forums and blogs. I'm sure there are other valid sources, and I'm sure some will consider a number of the above sources to be invalid, but the fact is that Zeitgeist is not going unnoticed and it is not "unnotable". This is apparent by the millions that have seen it, as well as those that have chosen to write about it in prestigious as well as not so prestigious news sources. Tubeyes 11:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I am aware of the sourcing; which is why I recommended keeping it. However, I'm trying to make sure this discussion does not degenerate into the joke the last one was by ensuring that people stay on topic and don't focus on irrelevant side-points with have nothing to do with the discussion. ---- Haemo (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Clear keep nontrivial coverage in reliable published sources. <eleland/talkedits> 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Some people are quite offended by this movie, but NPR stations have been giving away a copy of the DVD as a fundraising premium. With KPFK, it has also been part of their "Critical Thinker's Pack" for larger donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't really edit wikipedia much but I feel that the purpose of Wikipedia is to let the truth out on subjects such as this one. I often go to wikipedia for information, as many people do, and I'm sure many have checked Wikipedia hoping for an article on Zeitgeist to get more info and weren't able to. --DatDoo 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks to be notable film and meets WP:V. JForget 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep An encyclopedia should remain ideologically neutral. In this case declaring "non-notability" would practically equate to censorship, or would be equated to censorship by wikipedia's growing body of critics. Commenting on ideology or political relevance of a topic (no matter how obtusely done) ought to be kept to the discussion page, IF AT ALL. We all know that bias is inevitable in such comments , they can never be objective. Readers ought to be left to make their own judgments... after all this is an encyclopedia, not a politics site. BloomerBuzzer 12:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, it wouldn't. Wikipedia doesn't function to the tune of its "critics" and the only thing we're commenting on is the notability of the film in question. "Ideological neutrality" has nothing to do with it. ---- Haemo (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is important since it allows disambiguation of the movie and clarification. Motives for deletion would be that the article promotes the movie, but the article remains neutral. Articles like this are vital to stop memes before they become viral and keep the readership of Wikipedia informed. Webslingr (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete promotional; not notable Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article cannot even be considered for deletion anymore: this movie is famous enough to have an associated Wikipedia entry. This deletion suggestion is made by wikipedians who are in fact just CIA/MI5 terrorists since these CIA/MI5 terror groups are employing censorship policies to try to hide information from us the people. These terror organizations are so ridiculous. In fact, their censorship wannabes are just giving more strength to this article. CuandoCubango (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. I argued to delete this last time — am I a CIA spook? --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per sources - enough people seem to have been idiot enough to watch and buy into its claims that it has become notable enough through controversy. --Strothra (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Coverage in good sources, downloaded 5 million times. What a weird notion to delete this article Bishonen | talk 18:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep - passes WP:NOTE, per references in article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Certainly notable. Eeso (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2007 (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.