Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie

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. Self-published internet movie with no assertion of notability whatsoever, no reliable sources, no mainstream media attention, etc. If reliable sources demonstrating reliability and verifiability surface later, feel free to bring this to DRV. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 04:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Zeitgeist the Movie 1.1 subsection to make editing easier / July 10 1.2 subsection to make editing easier / July 11 1.3 subsection to make editing easier / July 12 2 subsection to make editing easier / July 15 2.1 subsection to make editing easier / July 13 2.2 subsection to make editing easier / July 14 2.3 subsection to make editing easier / July 15

[edit] Zeitgeist the Movie

"Zeitgeist The Movie is a film exploring the relationship between Christianity, 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Bank. It was released in 2007 on Google Video and is available for free distribution." That's swell, but the article lacks any information asserting that the film is at all notable. According to one of the article's main contributors, "there is huge word of mouth already. I will, and no doubt others will add sources proving noteriety as and when google caches the webpages into it's search lists." Until then, the "under construction" banner has been in place for five days, and I couldn't find any news sources about the film, or really any sources outside of hosts for the film and blogs insisting that everyone MUST WATCH IT. Maxamegalon2000 05:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article creator's reasons - I started the article Zeitgeist the Movie. The reason I started the article is because everywhere I went on the Net I seemed to come across mentions of it and mini reviews of it, and I ended up watching the movie. I then came to wikipedia to read about the movie and discovered there wasn't an article. This suprised me greatly. So.... I started an article. I must say I find these arguments about notability a little pedantic. Just because the movie hasn't reached the COMMERCIAL sector yet in terms of reviews, it doesn't mean it hasn't achieved notablity. The Internet is changing things and almost 80,000 specific hits through google is certainly an achievemnet of notability. It's only a matter of time before the movie is mentioned and maybe even shown on a TV channel anmd talked about on mainstream commerical news. Just becuase a movie is released for free distribution and hosted by googe video doesn't mean it has less social and notability value than a hollywood movie. It also seems 'odd' that calls for it's deletion should be made so early, when the article is still under construction.Vexorg 17:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that Vexorg has also !voted below --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP! It is critical that people are given the chance to learn the informaiton in this movie. It may not be the most notworthy movie about the topics it covers, but it is unique in the fact that all the informaiton is contained in one source. I understand policies, however, sometimes there is a greater good that can be achieved by not policing Wikipedia with an iron fist. If this article is removed from Wikipedia, that will be just one more stab at destroying our rights and liberties. It's called suppression, oppression and repression. The major media corporations do everything they can to supress independent media. [1] Right now, the major media corporations are pressuring the FCC for control over the Internet. This could forever silence every source of alternate media on the Internet. ( MONDAY is the LAST DAY to stop it!!! ) I believe that Wikipedia falls into that category, does it not? Please let this article stay! When George Bush becomes a dictator, [2][3][4] I bet you'll wish you had let people find out about this so they could have done something to stop it! Wisepiglet 20:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Please read WP:SOAP. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & improve. While the thoughts in this movie are controversial, they do have merit, and since when does a topic have to be a commercial commodity for it to be relevant? The movie and it's website both urge people to go out and research for themselves the topics. The website point to their sources. I'm afraid that the populace it too frightened to believe anything that is not on network TV, so sad, yet another instance of the dumbing down of the American demographic.Esme2150 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Esme2150 — Esme2150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • We're not looking for the filmmakers' sources for the claims asserted in the movie so much as we're looking for reliable, independent sources that discuss the movie in general. Note that the sources we're looking for wouldn't need to agree with the movie's claims, but they would need to support the idea that the movie is receiving public attention. --Metropolitan90 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Public AttentionThis is what is so wrong about notability guidelines being used to argue for the article's deletion. Anyone can see there is considerable public attention already.Vexorg 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are U guys Crazy?! Why would U need sources for describing a movie that's popular and only recently released. The movie is the source, all the summary has to do is tell people what the Film is about. 09:41, 10 July 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.159.63 (talk • contribs) — 172.163.159.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per the article "released in 2007 on Google Video". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve Let's work together and make wikipedia better, not smaller. Let's improve the article, not delete it. I was tipped to see the movie, in the Netherlands by a friend of mine who works at a bank. We can debate for ages whether it is notable; I can assert it is being noted. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above comment. Marcus1234 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve as stated by Xiutwel that the movie is being noted. Since there are no compelling standards of notableness beyond a few interested people, the article deserves to stay, barring any other issues that may arise. Kanodin 09:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)— Kanodin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Contrary to the above, there are compelling standards of notableness for Wikipedia, those being applicable here being the guidelines for films and web content. While there are references to this movie on the web, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence that the movie qualifies under either the film or web content notability criteria. So far, I can't confirm that it does. --Metropolitan90 10:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Criteria for notability do not include having been 'noted' by a Wikipedia editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • do not include having been 'noted' by a Wikipedia editor — if you would read more carefully, you might understand that I was making the point that it was noted not so much by me but by someone who works at one of the institutions described in the movie. Therefore I guess notability will be established sooner rather than later. — Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And as soon as notability is thus established the movie may merit an article. But not before. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 21:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The under construction beanner has only been up for 5 days and already it's up for deletion???? Isn't this a bit over zealous? Wikipedia is edited by people in their spare time. If you google this film under specific quotes "Zeitgeist The Movie" you get around 80,000 hits. Further, why should a film that has been released for free distribution and be publicised on the blog scene be handicapped against a film that's been released through a distributer and publicised with commercial help? There's a huge underground buzz about this movie.Vexorg 15:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:AFD "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article." Vexorg is the article creator and made substantial contributions to it.Naturally he/she is as entitled to express views here as anyone else. Edison 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is akin to myspace & youtube cruft; most of the ghits are from blogs & mirrors quoting the same thing ad nauseum. Of the 5 links #1 & 2 are primary source, #3 & 5 does not reference the film at all, and #4 is a google search... Therefore there's no 3rd party references given - nothing except primary sources. This simply does not meet the minimum standards for WP:NOTFILM and WP:WEB. SkierRMH 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Give it time to improveMark E 16:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources to establish notability so delete as per WP:WEB with no prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found. Davewild 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It is beyond discussion that the article does not yet meet Wikipedia standards. Deleting however will not speed up its improvement. Please do not lynch articles but improve them. — Xiutwel (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I really don't see what the problem is. Why should it be so hastily deleted, and why should you be so intent on deleting it? I happen to value wikipedia because it has what I look for - in other words, I look up Zeitgeist, and there it is, and that makes me happy. Moreover I don't see how it's a negative addition to begin with - aren't there more important things to be done than trying to delete the article a week after it's been created? Finally, it informs on what the movie is about, and should anyone ask me what it's about I can easily link them to wikipedia - which I like. It's not like there's any problem with the neutrality of the article or anything of the sort. Give it time and let it 'meet your formal standards', as deleting will not solve anything but waste more time on it. Mithadon 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — Mithadon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, Amendment is infinitely preferable to deletion. Instead of arguing for why it should be deleted, help amend it so that it meets the standards of wikipedia. This video is very important and the information about it needs to be there. 82.30.66.83 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Very informative movie and wiki entry. It tackles serious issues that need to be tackled.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) — User:Rom2k5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KEEP I don't see the what all the fuss is about. "Zeitgeist - The Movie" is a well made, informative film. As other uses have said, the film tackles serious, somewhat grave and thought-provoking issues. If anything, this film highlights the current trend for productions of this kind on the internet and deserves to be noted. Paul S UK 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. About the only notability that the film can come up with is word of mouth and google search counts, but these don't fall into our notability guidelines. Only keep arguments in place are either non-sequiturs or not holding the article to policy. This film, in short, isn't all that notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 10

• Delete Self published youtube nonsense. If self published books aren't usually notable, why should silly conspiracy mongering nonsense on 'google video'. If there's a video of someone's cat dancing 'released on google video' does that make it notable too? Nick mallory 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Zero outside 3rd party RSs to establish notability. No prejudice against future creation of an appropriate non-spammy article if it actually does get noticed by some RSs. DGG (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clean the sock drawer. Put the meat back in the meat locker. There is no coverage by any reliable sources. GassyGuy 02:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've never done any commenting on this before, but a friend of mine told me about the movie. It's two freaking hours long, and I got bored 40 minutes into it. I decided to look it up on wikipedia to find out what it was about, and found out it was up for deletion. I don't understand that at all. I've seen articles on the most inane and inconsequential topics here, and you guys want to delete an article that is actually useful? Regardless of whether it conforms to what you think of as notable, it's useful simply because it sums the movie up for those of us that don't want to sit for two hours and watch it. The whole point of wikipedia is that it's an open encyclopedia that covers *all* topics...try not to change that now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.62.228 (talk • contribs) — 67.168.62.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment duh... "I've never done any commenting on this before" — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• An interesting new argument above. I'm not sure it was the intention, but it seems to amount to: this is so unimportant it isn't worth viewing, and therefore we should have an article as a substitute, so nobody will need to see it.DGG (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Christ, guys, though I agree I'm not terribly convinced of notability at this point, deleting an article after a scant five days, while under construction, smacks of WP:BITE and is borderline incivility. Give the editor a chance to finish the article. If after time it is obvious that the article has not improved, renominate. Evouga 06:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• The claim here is that, regardless of how good the article is, the subject matter does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Those in opposition of that claim have at minimum five days to present reliable sources proving otherwise and this discussion will close as a keep. However, while there are several keep arguments, most of them are of the "This article is useful!" or "You nominated this too soon!" nature and don't actually address the issues raised. GassyGuy 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not crystal balls either, we do not know how good an article will be until an editor has finished creating an article. Ripping an article out from under an editor is disruptive, detrimental to the encyclopedia, and uncivil, and I am within policy to object to his AfD on those grounds. Evouga 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article won't be good because there are no third party sources covering the film. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• "KEEP" Calling this article "YouTube nonsense" as "User:DGG" suggests is asinine as the user suggests that everything found on YouTube or similar self-broadcast is without merit (all political messages from politicians, all musicians, artist, and the like - EVERYONE that the creators of YouTube intended to serve - they assert that they are all without merit. The "DELETE" users also suggest that it is not notable unless a government has sponsored the content or approved it. We still live in a free society and free speech has not been outlawed yet. This film goes to great lengths to supports it's claims. The majority of those who want to delete this article are those who simply do not agree with it's findings - under their OPINION, not factual research. By that accord, those who do not agree with the current things found in the public life should just be deleted? Also the continual assertion that "There is No evidence" is false. By that accord, such publications that actually have no concrete evidence or merit for it's content, such as the bible and the 9/11 Commission report, should also be deleted. Cherry picking Wiki entries based on OPINION, not EVIDENCE, is fascism - not freedom. The excuse for deleting "I don't like YouTube, MySpace, and Google video" doesn't lie in problems with the film. If those that want this deleted prefer to protest MySpace, YouTube, and Google Video, may we all recommend they do so. Or, maybe they will feel more comfortable living in a more regulated country such as China. — Erico Mertz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • First off, I, for one, did not make that assertion that it requires government sponsorship or approval. Second, you are taking statements out of context: there is no evidence of notability is the correct statement. Try again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB , WP:A , and WP:NOTFILM . A low budget independent sensational conspiracy film, even one not shown in theaters, can indeed become notable, by getting discussed substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, or by winning notable film industry awards. This one has done none of the above. The closing administrator should note that many of the keep votes came from recently created accounts with few or no previous edits, and failed to state a reason other than the person likes it, or itt is a well made film. Edison 14:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP This film is mentioned in countless forums (I note someone has attempted to count them)Regardless of the "merits" of the film, it deserves a entry in wiki just by notoriety alone .Mr zendal 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC){— Mr zendal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment It is extremely easy for a group seeking to promote an extreme point of view or a conspiracy theory or any moonbeam madness to "mention it in countless forums." Google counts are easily gamed. It is also easy to promote this AFD by various means and have people who have never contributed to Wikipedia (welcome to all, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia!) jump in and create accounts to !vote to keep it. It is somewhat harder to get substantial published notice in reliable independent publications which have editorial review, as required by our notability guidelines. Edison 13:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Godwin's Law Film which is self-published on Google Videos with no evidence of notability. Has a fair few Google hits, but these all appear to lead to forums or blogs - there seem to be no reliable independent sources, without which a good article cannot be written. I'll happily change my opinion if anyone can show how this film satisfies any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (films) or Wikipedia:Notability (web) but none of the keep votes has yet attempted to do so. Iain99 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

comment I believe you misunderstand this law. The law asserts that, after a certain amount of time, people will call their adversaries "Nazi". This is completely different from asserting that Nazi's as well as the New World Order seem to have the same group of bankers behind them, controlling events. This is not name-calling, it is historical research. It may be flawed, but it is not name-calling. — Xiutwel (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have two points to make. 1) The article has had 11 edits in the last three days. It is not "currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." 2) Even if the article were actually under construction, there is not enough verifiable information on or reputable coverage of the film. Many here are arguing that coverage will be added when it is made available, but that argument only supports the deletion of the article until such coverage exists, especially considering there is no guarantee that such coverage ever will exist. This is not a bias against Internet films, it is a bias against nonnotable films. Regardless of the film's content, there must be notable and reputable coverage of a film, or a person, or any other topic, to indicate that an article is merited. No amount of Google hits or forum mentions can address this issue. --Maxamegalon2000 17:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment Maxamegalon says "No amount of Google hits or forum mentions can address this issue" - This is so wrong and is eactly what's wrong with wikipedia notablity criteria. Forums and blogs are the "word of mouth" of the Internet, IOW, the world community. Why should media that is distributed through the grass roots of the community and achieve great notablity on that community be penalised in comparison to a commercially released film that is reviews on websites that review commerically released films. Zeitgeist The Movie has probably been seen and talked about far more than many commercially relased films. Almost 80,000 specif hits on google IS notable coverage of a film. Further it is unfair to say 1) The article has had 11 edits in the last three days. It is not "currently in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." -If it had 11 edits in the last 3 months then it might be fair comment. but 3 days? There does seem to be a move to delete this article rather hastily. The article has only just been created. it's understable that the content of the film is controversial and understandablwe that certain quarters might want not want the issues discussed or even broadcast. howevr the filem has achieved considerable world community noteriety and the article should definitely be kept.Vexorg 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Certainly deleting it now because it has no satisfactory evidence of notability would not prevent recreation of the article later if it gets written up by nationally known film critics or political or religious experts, or becomes otherwise notable. Google hits and the fact that it is viewable on YouTube or Google Video are not sufficient. Wikipedia is not here to publicize someone's independent documentary. But once it becomes independantly notable it could have an article. The standards for films are pretty rigorous (but that can always be itself edited). It doesn't even have to be fair , accurate, true, or rational to be notable enough for an article. Edison 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So one nationally known film critic has weight over 80,000 forum and blog entries? This is so wrong. it's also wrong people are comparing Zeitgeist The Movie to the usual nonsense clips that are usually put on Google Video aor You-Tube. This is a proper film. it is 2 hours along. It shoudln't be penalised becuase the make decided to release it on googele video Distribution of media in this way is the future.Vexorg

• Comment This is not the place to discuss Wikipedia policy. This article falls afoul of it. If you'd like to change the policies themselves, please open those discussions in the proper fora. As it stands, yes, a reliable source carries more weight than all the lovely little Internet posters you can find. You call it the new "word of mouth" of the Internet, but I'd point out that the old word of mouth is hardly an acceptable source for encyclopaedias, either. GassyGuy 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not so against discussing guidelines or policies in AFD's because lots of policies and guidelines cite AFD outcomes as justifications for their existence. Policies and guidelines describe what is rather than what ought to be in terms of what gets kept or deleted. The length of something hardly is any evidence of its notability.I doubt they "decided" to release it on Google Video rather than in theaters like the equally controversial documentaries by Michael Moore or Al Gore. And few would call "one nationally known film critic" sufficient. Multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage are needed. Lots of students make "proper films" that are 2 hours long, and are not notable. The first 5 minutes of this are very slickly and professionally edited, then it is like a slide show with an offscreen announcer reciting a long list of "facts" of extremely doubtful validity. Edison 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

GassyGuy says "I'd point out that the old word of mouth is hardly an acceptable source for encyclopaedias, either" - Surely the point of an Encyclopedia is to be there when someone who has heard of something and wants to "Look it up" to find out more. A huge plus point of wikiedpia and that anyone can take part in compiling it is that it allows for much more entries than a traditional commerical encyclopedia like Brittanica or Encatra could find the resources to allow.

As I said, the very reason I started the article is becuase I was most suprised that Wikipedia didn't already have one. Further, lots ofstudents may release 2 hour films which never see the light of day. but if a student released a film that has aquired the wrod of mouth notoreity that Zeitgeist the Movie has aquired then IMO it definitely qualifies to have an entry in wikipedia. The only defense those who wish to see the article deleted sems to be that the movie hasn't yet had a review by a known move reviewer. So what? The movie is real, it is well known across the world and is being talked about acrioss the world. It's especially over zealous IMO to call for something to be deletd when the article has only just ben started and is under construction. And just becuase it hasn't had 40,000 edits in 2 hours doesn't mean it's not still under construction either.Vexorg 20:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In the last six hours, this AfD page has been edited 26 times. The article's page has been edited zero times. --Maxamegalon2000 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say. The article has been edited zero times in six hours? And your point is? Vexorg 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The point is, that if there were reliable and valid references, they could have been added in 6 hours. For many AFDs I have found and added sufficient references (when they exist) that other editors have changed their "Deletes" to "Keeps" and the articles were kept, somewhat improved. Wikipedia is not a site for promoting fauxumentaries no matter how fervently someone wants to promote it, when it has not gained notability to satisfy the primary notability guideline or the one for films. If we had a guideline for internet memes, some catchy bit of video fluff which "spreads by word of mouth" or which is an internet phenomenon, or a viral video, might seek to be kept on that basis (like Obama Girl, which had over half a dozen reliable independent coverages besides the present 2.7 million downloads. This work seems too ponderous to be internet fluff. "Memes" are not generally over 2 hours long. Edison 13:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one am not going to spend much time on articles, as long as there is a lynch-mob around. So I suggest we first finish this debate, eh? — Xiutwel (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

comment promoting fauxumentaries... First of all, Edison, I thank you for speaking candidly about your motivation. I would like to know even more, and I invite you to explain in more detail why you object to such 'promoting': is it (a) the name of wikipedia which is at stake, or is it (b) the unwarrented spread of evil thoughts which you do not want wikipedia to contribute to?
In any case, I do not see why wikipedia would not describe even evil thoughts when they exist and are notable. We have an article on the September 11, 2001 attacks which, unintentionally, could be interpreted as 'praise' for Al Qaeda for having succesfully attacked the World's mightiest Nation, renowned for its Governments' policies bullying less mighty nations. No offense, but I think Al Qaeda would love the article, since they loved the attack. We write the article nonetheless.
Similarly, it is not our job to prove this documentary wrong or misguided, just to describe its existence and its consequences as much independently as possible. You may feel it's not worth our while. Such is your right. But if you would like to talk others out of making that article anyhow, please try your very best to convince them.
I've made my points about NOTE and RS further down. — Xiutwel (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

response on my talk page — Xiutwel (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 11

• Delete, per Iain99. All objections here are objections to Wikipedia policy rather than attempts to establish notability or site reliable sources. Scott.wheeler 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article seems to be getting attention of editors who want to improve the article, presumably by also adding evidence of notability, perhaps we shouldn't prematurely delete the article until it is clear that it cannot be redeemed? If the article for Sicko had been hastily written with no verifiable sources, the article would be flagged for cleanup, not deleted. I don't see why good faith to continue building the article can't be assumed in this case, until there is clear evidence otherwise. Evouga 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why AfDs run for upto 5 days, to give people a chance to reference and improve --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(a) I reiterate, that per WP standards, nobody here has said that they will be bringing the article up to standards; they've simply been complaining about what those standards are. The fact that none of the objections come from established editors also smacks of meat-puppetry. (b) If this had happened for Sicko there would have been a quick rush to add links to wp:reliable sources since they are numerous. Scott.wheeler 10:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubts about the good faith of the article's creators - the problem is, as I alluded to above, that in spite of their good will, the article simply cannot be improved unless and until the film is noted by some reputable sources. A good article would include things like: What sort of critical reception has the film had? What has its impact on the public view of 9/11 been? What counter-arguments have been made in response to its claims? As Wikipedia doesn't publish original research or the views of random people on web forums, nothing can be written about these things - in fact nothing can be written about the film at all beside the bare fact that it exists and maybe a brief summary of its content, which does not make for an encyclopaedia article. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has standards of notability in the first place - to ensure that there's actually enough to write an article with. Iain99 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable, independent, non-blog sources; the only claim to notability is a "specific google search"! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The "reliable sources" to establish formal notability may not have found time to write about it yet. This wiki article is only a week old, the movie has only been released for a month, without the 12-months-in-advance Hollywood announcing aparatus Coming soon in a theatre near you. Please soul-search yourself if you needed the article to be deleted if you actually liked the contents in stead of detested it, and let's give it some time, folks! — Xiutwel (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But, by the same token, what's the big deal in deleting it now and recreating at a later date if and when the references are there? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

comment: why do you need this article to be deleted for about a year, and only have it undeleted then? What purpose would that serve? The "big deal" is: all that time wikipedia editors would not be able to contribute to the article. We would have to start from scratch then. Please tell me, why would you want us to waste that time?
Please see: Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. ^{WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY}
And also: WP:NOTCENSORED. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about NOTCENSORED, but here it is a nonsequitur - we are not censoring the article, we are discussing removal due to a lack of notability. If we were into censorship, don't you think it would have vanished withing a few moments of creation? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep & improve. The content sounds interesting and it seems like early days. Kimindex 11:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — Kimindex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep. It's a bit young to delete it already - give it time and see what it evolves into. 82.27.18.166 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) — 82.27.18.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete I searched to see if this has any reliable source coverage, such as on Google News and got zero results. --Aude (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment please do not use SOCKS to "influence" the outcome. It's silly. This is not a vote, it is the merit of the arguments that counts. So, please everybody: respond to my comment above "wikipedia is not a burocracy" and "why would WP be better off when the article is deleted in stead of improved over time".
  Note to admin: please do not use the usage of socks as an argument for deletion; it is not relevant since this is not a vote, and hypothetically, it could even be socks used by trolls to disturb this debate. Thanks! — Xiutwel (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a new film and the wiki article is only 1 week old. The lynch-mob rush to delete this article has been noted and it's not unreasonble to understand why certain quarters would want references to a film with controversial content cemsored. WP:NOTCENSORED However baised objections to criticisms of traditional mythology aside why can't the article grow with the notablity of the film? Big budget commerical films have the beneift of payola into mainstream review houses which essentially means a commerical bias to media which gains early wiki notability. Zeitgeist ( and no doubit other independent media )has a handicap here. Had zeitgeist ( with exactly the same content ) been relased through a big commerical distributer the sources of notability would be there from the start.Vexorg 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment to Xiutwel above in re the censorship factor. And you are correct - it sure would have a nice little boost if this were commercially distributed - but, it's not. It's got an uphill battle if it wants to be notable, and we are not the means to promote it and/or make it notable. Life is hard. For what it's worth, though, if it does fall within WP:N, I have no prejudice to changing my vote and/or the recreation of the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's clear that while some objectors to the article are doing so in good faith to wiki guidelines, it's every clear that some are trying to censor the article because of it's content.Vexorg 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's right. It's always easier to assume a major conspiracy against you, rather than actually finding the sources for your article! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's also worth noting that while I was undertaking a major edit an ojector to the article at 02:35, 11 July 2007 GMT actually ripped both the WP:LOCK ((inuse)) tag AND the ((Underconstruction)) tag from the article citing them as inappropriate!!!Vexorg 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's also worth noting the article hasn't changed much [5] since I "ripped" the tags out (How did you know I made a ripping sound when I pressed 'Save page'?) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Untruth - Firstly - I was making a major edit to the page at the time you removed the INUSE and UNDERCONSTRUCTION tags from the article. I don't think anyone wil largue that removing those tags wasn't good wiki behaviour as there was absolutely no reason to do so. Particularly as the last edit was only 8 minutes before you ripped the tags amd there had been a lot of editign over the previous 2 hours. Secondly - Yuo've only got to look at the Edit History to the substantial changes made since I pu t the tags back and carried on. I usgt say there is definitely some hate and over zealousness in getting the article deleted.Vexorg 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not Notable. Not reliable. Not Encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 12

• Keep, I think the reason that people want this article deleted lies more with the fact that the movie opposes their views than any actual desire to see a "cleaner" article. It's still marked as under construction - give the author time to clean up the article. Wikipedia isn't about crushing opposing viewpoints. Again, this wouldn't even be an issue if the movie wasn't so controversial. The fact that this discussion is taking place on such a grand scale puts it in the "notable" category. 65.80.203.42 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Based on edit you are either editing another user's comments, or else voting twice under different names. Both are poor form - please desist. Iain99 23:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this wouldn't be an issue if the movie wasn't so controversial; I doubt anyone would be voting "keep". There's simply no valid assertion of notability. --Maxamegalon2000 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it controversial at all. It would seem the people who want it deleted are more likely to find it controversial. If it wasn't so controversial I very much doubt there's be a ;ynch mob to get it deleted so quickly.Vexorg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can accept that - I personally think that the movie is rather silly and quite boring. That said, it's currently something people want to be able to look up information about. Couldn't deletion be considered in a month or two when everyone on earth has forgotten about it? This whole thing is just creating more controversy leading to more people wanting to see the movie leading to more people wanting the article deleted leading to more people protesting - - over and over ad nauseum. Why not let it lie and give the author time to clean it up....and then if the film proves itself to be notable it won't be because of a massive controversy on Wikipedia. 65.80.203.42 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The web notability criteria notes three independently sufficient conditions for website notability (WP:WEB). I wish to bring attention to the third criteria: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for: trivial distribution such as hosting content on user-submitted sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)". Also note that the criteria for reliable sources does not apply to notability, just on citation of facts. I noticed that there are two websites that give coverage to the online film: http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/zeitgeist-the-movie/659/ and http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00460 . As far as I can tell, neither of these sites are personal blogs. Aude above believes that Google News and the criteria of reliable source should be used to determine if a website is notable. However, the third criteria above does not demand that any sources meet these criteria. If these two sites are not trivial, then notability is established. Also is there something to be said about Google hosting the ~2 hours of this video? Kanodin 21:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, being a Google Video release is certainly not fulfillment of any notability criterion, and almost every "keep" so far seems to either be a "ignore policy and wait around for awhile", a vote by probable meatpuppets, or personal attacks on the possible (and likely irrelevant) private motivations of people wishing to delete the article. About the best argument to keep I see here is by User:Kanodin, who tries to cite two possibly non-trivial websites. However, the atheistnation link will not load on my computer and the URL name certainly doesn't sound very reliable, and the rinf website clearly appears to be a conspiracy theory website by content, and alone, I really don't see how its capable of making a well-referenced and factual article. Also, Google Video looks pretty close to a user-submitted content site to me. Homestarmy 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why would www.atheistnation.net ( which loads fine here btw ) not sound a reliable URL and is there any reason why it shouldn't be any less reliable than a site like http://www.wayofthemaster.com/ for example?? And why would a website ( rinf.com ) that deals with theories on world events other than what the gevernment tell us be automatically 'incapable of making a well-referenced and factual article' ?? Those assertations are absolutely baseless and show a biased point of view.Vexorg 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got to it on the second try. It sounded unreliable because the name sounded like so many other atheististic apologetics sites that i've seen out there, and actually being able to see it hasn't changed my mind. I can't even find a clearly labelled place on the site that even says who runs it and how many people are involved, the welcome banner only has one name on it, it may just be a personal website who's owner has put in various user-input features for all I can tell. Not being able to tell exactly who owns and/or maintains a site is generally a bad sign when it comes to reliability of a website for referencing purposes. Nextly, the reason I had "I really don't see" in my sentence about rinf wasn't just because I enjoy seeing all the funtastic words I type show up on the screen when I click save, I had those qualifiers there because like it or not, I really do not understand how this website can be trusted to be high-quality and trustworthy enough to serve as the sole reliable source of an article. You may find my assertions concerning my own state of mind baseless, but there's nothing in your reply that gives me anything new to go on suggesting that this conspiracy website actually is trustworthy and reliable. Homestarmy 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks to Kanodin for at least trying to make a case. Unfortunately though, the links you've mentioned aren't very helpful. I'm afraid I'm not sure about the importance of either site, but they're both very trivial mentions anyway. The Atheist Nation page just has a mirror of the Google Video with no editorial comment whatsoever, and the rinf site has three sentences which appear to be lifted from a badly written press release. What's needed are reasonably in depth articles about the film, so that there is at least a possibility of writing a proper article based on them as I said above. And Google Video is a user-generated content site which allows anybody to upload clips - even two hours worth. Iain99 22:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Simple appearance on Google Video does not web notability make. All Google hits are blogs or the video itself, nothing with a news story or review. MSJapan 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Having read the article, what external links there are, the discussion page and this ADF... delete, notability for inclusion not established. See Wikipedia:Notability (films), as well as the more general Wikipedia:NotabilityAs an aside; one reference - and that goes to an wikipedia article? WegianWarrior 07:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• comment (keep) We are clearly not reaching consensus on deletion at all. There are 2 guidelines at stake:
  • notability: since the film is very new, notability cannot yet be established by reliable sources, which is understandable. Considering the interest in this deletion page, and the vast amount of bloggers talking about such a new film, I would assume that notability will be a matter of time, as it was with Loose Change. It would seem counterproductive to delete for this aspect.
  • reliable sources: currently, the only reliable sources are unfortunately the primary sources of the video and the maker's website. This is acceptable, though it is undesirable. Nonetheless I feel an article can be written which is helpful to visitors and looks good on wikipedia. And please remember: WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, the guidelines are a tool to reach consensus more easily, not to be used in stead of reaching consensus. "Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." — Xiutwel (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a pretty strong consensus here between regular editors. The overwhelming majority of the objections (aside from yours, and I believe I saw one other regular editor) are not from previous WP contributors. Your arguments in favor of preserving the page are also still essentially, "We should ignore WP policy, because there seems to be a lot of interest in this." That, however, thusfar has not convinced me or the other regular editors that a sweeping exception is merited. Scott.wheeler 11:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(aside from yours, and I believe I saw one other regular editor) ... Maybe you would like to make a list of editors you researched, to make your claim more transparant? I feel it's silly to be so burocratic about the notability guideline already within a month after an internet-release. If this film is not notable in a year, then you may have a point. I think the harm in scaring away newcomers is greater than the merit of deleting now in order to conform to guidelines: I myself started on a single subject on nl: and since have become more and more enthousiastic for wikipedia.
A guideline is an average of all cases, and not necessarily appropriate in any given example. It cannot replace the merit of consensus-building, and I see too little effort to do so from the delete-votes. And who says newcomers have less to say than oldies?
In any case, if the verdict would be delete I would request userfication of the article. Now I'm taking a wikibreak ! See you all in August. — Xiutwel (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll post a tally in a new section. It is accepted within the Wikipedia community that long-term members have more influence on its direction, evidenced, for example, by the way that board elections are done. Scott.wheeler 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This film makes enough claims supported by half-truths or absolute falsehoods that it may well get critical (in the harsher sense of the word) notice in reliable sites. Or the mainstream media may ignore it so it withers on the vine, because they know that to attack it is to show it is notable. Then the article can be recreated. Wikipedia is not here to serve as part of someone's initial publicity campaign to promote something which hasa not yet become notable. As an example of the kind of coverage it may get, the James Randi Educational Foundation's blog, [6] a "skeptical " debunking site, had some posts by bloggers debunking the film. (I do not feel the JREF, as a blog, is an adequate site to show notability.) The JREF shows how it repeated or copied material from "Loose Change", from an anti-Judeo-Christian conspiracy site, and from a site opposing the Federal Reserve and income taxes, and stating that it repeated falsehoods about how there is no law requiring US citizens to pay a federal tax from other sites, and linking to sites which debunk this. It also has material debunking the attacks on Judeo-Christianity. (Funny how they were careful not to attack Islam or Mohammed). All sections of it have some truths mixed with some falsehoods and some halftruths. Some of the howlers pointed out are how the film implies that in Biblical times the Jews, Egyptians, etc used the English words "sun" and "son." If the film ever becomes notable, then the Wikipedia article can also have a debunking function, in order to be NPOV. Edison 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment ( not a publicity campaign ) - In respomse to Edison aboev who says "Wikipedia is not here to serve as part of someone's initial publicity campaign to promote something which hasa not yet become notable" I would just like to clarify that my interest in creating and improving the article has nothing whatsoever to do with any publicity campaign. I have no Connection with the film or its makers at all. I am simply a Wiki Editor who saw the film and was suprised the film wasn't already on Wiki.Vexorg 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  CommentI do not mean to imply that your efforts to create and keep an article about the film are anything other than a good faith effort to have an article about an interesting film. As I said, it is not impossible that it might become notable in the future. But there are tens of thousands of nonnotable films created each year by students or special interest groups, and it is contrary to WP:N and WP:FILM to have articles to provide publicity for them, until they have become otherwise notable. Edison 04:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP i was looking for more info/ links. no doubt the us government *cough Nazi's* will have it closed down soon enough anyway, the page defiantly needs to stay!!— 203.113.238.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Shame that I can't call Godwin here. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It was questioned earlier in this topic whether or not a concensus has been reached and that I list which entries I inspected. As this entry has grown it has become difficult to maintain an overview, so I've made a summary list. (CONTENT DELETED HERE; SEE COMMENT BELOW --Metropolitan90 19:44, 12 July 2007.)    Scott.wheeler 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the summary list prepared by Scott.wheeler per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, which states, "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of recommendations, however much you may think that this helps the process." In my experience, compiling a "vote count" during the AfD discussion period is generally disfavored by administrators. If this is no longer correct, Scott's summary list is in the edit history and can be restored if needed. --Metropolitan90 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I have just looked at the so called 'Overview' by ScScott.wheeler in the edit history and rather than being an overview it's actually a biased conclusion. Especially with comments like "As most or all of the non-registered or non-editor opinions are likely meat puppets" - So Scott.wheeler considers the consensus to be strongly in favour of deletion because Scott.wheeler makes a baseless allegation that a lot of those in favour of keeping are 'meatpuppets' ??? Metropolitan90 was correct in deleting this bias. I have also changed the title to this section as there is no "overview of opinions thus far" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexorg (talk • contribs)

Hi Metropolitan90 -- that's fine. It's there in the history if anyone cares to look. That came up in another comment of mine that was replied to and I hadn't previously seen that guideline. Vexorg, I don't believe that it's particularly crazy to assume that many of the users which have created accounts just to register their opinions in this debate were directed here by some online forum. You're naturally free to assume otherwise. However, more to the point is that WP does tend to see the opinions of established editors as more relevant than those who have not previously contributed to the project, regardless of if those accounts were created in good faith or otherwise. Scott.wheeler 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Article has a big banner proclaiming it is being nominated for delation and there; a link to this discussion page. It's also highly likely that people using Wikipedia have seen the abnner and have come here to voice their opinion. I can understand, dut to human Nature that regular/established editors are going to hold more sway, but really surely it's the argument that matters not whose making it? This also extends to the notoriety issue. Thousands of people are talking about the film all over the Internet through blogs. this is grass roots word of mouth. yet if a couple of people who write film reviews sunddely publish a review on teh film becuase they themselves might have seen the popularity in the blogs all of asudden it meets Wikipedia notability. Which essentially means that 70,000 people talking of it means nothing, but 70,002 and it's OK. remember over 250,000 have seen the film. And people are still arguing that there's no notability?Vexorg 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely about the argument that matters, not who's making it. But there hasn't been a good argument for keeping the article that doesn't require an abandonment of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. When a new user, clearly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, makes a single contribution to Wikipedia, and that single contribution is to argue that we should ignore our policies and guidelines to keep an article on a subject that the new user is passionate about and just knows will become notable in just a few weeks, how on earth are we supposed to justify giving their argument any weight compared to those of established editors? Also, notability is not the same thing as popularity. What can be said about this film beyond a plot summary? The article is almost 20,000 bytes, but nothing after the first paragraph would be part of a proper article on this film; all we'd be left with is "This is a film, and this is what it's about. Here's how many Google hits it has." All of that could be said about pretty much any film released. "Snake coughs up entire hippo" has more views and more Google hits too; should we have an article on that video as well? --Maxamegalon2000 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • There are established editors arguung to keep the article though. notable is subjective, which obviously makes the discussion harder to resolve, but comparing it to a google video on a "snake coughing up a hippo" is IMO a false analogy when trying to aergue down the inroads the film has made over netVexorg 02:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe, maybe not. But riddle me this: why is it notable? What makes this video notable? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
      • What makes it notable? Thousands and thousands of people talking about and the film. The immense word of mouth about the film that's what. As Xiutwel says below 3 film 'proffessors talk about the film and it's got authority, 300,000 oridnary people talk about it and is hasn't. This is panering to Argument_from_authority. Vexorg 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zim 06 23:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)←

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 15

• Delete per (picks one at semi-random) Edison. CWC 04:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 13

• KEEP. I created this movie. I am currently updating the sources. I was not made aware of this Article until recently.

About 20% of the sources are now posted as of 7/12/07. Zeitgeist took 6 months to research. I do not think there is any reason for its deletion. You will find that this work is more researched and sourced than 75% of the Articles on Wikipedia. I will have the elements totally sourced in a few days. Thank you. Peter J. zeitgeistmovie.com --Zeitgeist filmmaker 3:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC) — Zeitgeist filmmaker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi. I think you may be confused. The call for sourcing is not for sources for the information presented in the film, but for sources for information about the film; things like reviews and news articles published by reliable sources are necessary to show the notability of the film. As I mentioned at the article's talk page, adding content from the film to the article does nothing to address the concerns raised in this deletion discussion. While a brief discussion of the film's message may be appropriate, the article should be about the film's production, reaction to the film, and things like that. The film's content is largely irrelevant to this deletion discussion, and would almost certainly be substantially shortened if the article is kept or restored. --Maxamegalon2000 04:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist filmmaker, I appreciate your film-making accomplishments and efforts to produce a complete reference list. However, I'm afraid I have to agree with Maxa's last comment. The deletion turns on the film's notability, not about its veracity. Zeitgeist filmmaker, a smart defense against deletion is to inspire and report independent and nontrivial news attributions so that the movies satisfies WP:WEB, which I believe is the appropriate criteria in this case. Conducting more research to strengthen the film's thesis is great, but it is unfortunately irrelevant to this particular issue. There is a dearth of news covering the film/website, so establishing notability has been rather difficult. If you have any connections with people in news, now would be the time to engineer a professional review. I also should note (if it has not been made explicit before), that a deletion caused by a notability deficit can be overcome in the future. If it turns out that "Zeitgeist The Movie" fails Wikipedia's notability standards, the movie may meet those standards in the future. Deletion does not have to be forever, but an article on Wikipedia should not be a plug to generate notability. Kanodin 09:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

comment I know people are really dependent on outside "authority" to know whether they are right. It is really a pity to freely give our power away to some "authority". It is so tragic that people would call this movie notable if 3 professors would look at the video and call it a bunch of crap, where as when 300.000 ordinary people look at it, like it and even write a wikipedia article on it, it is not notable.
It is no big deal to delete the article, have it userfied, improve it and undelete it when the time has come. But it's so sad, so tragic. Ironically, this giving away of power which is happening right here on this page, is exactly the mechnanism described in the very film Zeitgeist the Movie: in stead of relying on our own beliefs and truths, we copy the truths of "authority", i.e. the church, the bankers, the government leaders.
It's probably meant to be this way, and I'm sure these are the last convulsions of the ruling paradigm and times are changing for the better!
Greetings from the beach! — Xiutwel (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PS I agree it's not the sources for the film that are at stake in this discussion on deletion.

But that's what Wikipedia (or in fact any encyclopedia) is, by definition. Saying that it's sad that WP relying on outside reliable sources is tragic is like looking at a sandwich and saying that it's sad that they always make them with bread. I think it's great that there is an arena for flourishing opinions and an open forum for debate on the internet; it's just that Wikipedia isn't that place. This seems to be the fundamental disconnect in this debate; it's really not about the subject matter of the film (I've not watched it.), but rather what Wikipedia is. The debate hasn't really been much of one because it's essentially been, "We're sorry, independent of the content of the film, at present it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion." while the "keeps" assert, "But lot's of people are interested. The rules are silly." I should note that such rules are not fixed in stone; they may be changed through community processes, but the place to change them is in the guideline discussions, not in a specific article's deletion debate. Scott.wheeler 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

but Scott, Xiutwel is right. The argument on notability rests upon Argument_from_authority. thousands and thouasands of ordinary people are talking about and reviewing this film and that means nothing? yet 2 or 3 people who earn money by reviewing films make comment on it and all of a sudden...VOILA!!.... it's now notable. This is the tag from WP:NOTFILM

{{subcat guideline}}

note it says.... "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" - The occasional exception page says..

When editing Wikipedia, you should use common sense, build consensus, and focus on improving or maintaining the project. If the rules would prevent this, ignore them.

- For me common sense says that deleting this article would be so wrong. The content of the film and teh method of distribution of the film notwithstanding, the immense world of mouth this film has generated is more than enoguh for notability.Vexorg 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not doing it well by lawyering. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An aside, Vexorg: please read about what "ignore all rules" means. Failing to understand this brings about faulty arguments such as yours. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Failing to understand this brings about faulty arguments I just read the "ignore all rules" page and... tend to agree with Vexorg, so, Dennis the Tiger, please point out what you mean exactly, in stead of rawring a bit vaguely. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The impression I get is that Vexorg is using IAR to basically try and get his way - that is, he is wanting to promote the movie for one reason or another. Near as I can tell, it's because he likes it - which I do not begrudge, but WP:ILIKEIT and all that. That is one aspect of what I see. What else I see is something that I feel can be pointed out in the WIARN article by doing a side by side comparison, and I don't think that a point-by-point explanation is necessary - it is not my place to further analyze his arguments. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as notability, I have posted some external links including a Radio Interview. After this weekend I will have been on 3 radio stations doing interviews.(I will post them all when the archives are available ) There are about 25,000 views a day on this movie via google, not to mention the other format embed across the internet. Coupled with the original release, the main movie via google alone has gotten about 600,000 views since June 8th. This is no small number. Zeitgeist filmmaker

You raise good points, and the plug for reviews is there. The problem is that I'm not sure that any interviews on a radio show would constitute notability. Promotion, definitely, but not necessarily notability. If I remember right, this is one of the few exceptions to the "no notability by extension" rule - basically, if it hits an interview on the big time, you might *just* cross the line. The reviews... well, I'll leave that to somebody else's thoughts, as I'm not sure about how reviews fit into the picture. My !vote stands for now, but this'll also depend on what some of the others say on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: check WP:BIGNUMBER. A number of viewcounts is really not a good gauge of notability - not saying you'd do this, but frankly, I can achieve a big hitcount with wget and bash. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe 600,000 views, but it took me four sessions to plow through it, so the number of actual viewers might be a bit less. Several of us have said that IF it becomes notable, there can be an article, but the article may not be used to publicize it before it gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison 19:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as of right now, it fails to have reliable sources. If it picks up notability and gains writeups in reliable sources, then by all means recreate the article. -- Whpq 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely lacks notability.--MONGO 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment MONGO, if you don't like the movie, well, take no notice. It "isn't notable", remember? (You must be really desparately clinging on to your 911-was-an-unpreventable-misfortune truth by your fingernails, when you take so much effort to have everything deleted which might suggest otherwise...) Cheers, — Xiutwel (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (films), which is a well-established guideline to determine the notability of indy films like this one. First, the film is not widely distributed and has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Second, it's not historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: (i) has there been publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release; (ii)is the film deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release; (iii) has the film been given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; or (iv)has the film been featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Third, the film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Fourth, the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive. And fifth, the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. This film fails ALL of our notability requirements for film. Delete it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Morton. Since I have nothing to add to Morton's comment on why the article miserably fails inclusion, I'm going to address the keep votes. The reasons behind every keep vote so far are atrocious. They fall into three categories: A) I like this movie and don't want to see it deleted! B) The article is new and we shouldn't delete it yet! C) It is notable due to word of mouth and hits on Google. There is also another category of keep votes where the voters don't have any real reason to keep the article, so they just type "KEEP!" (note all caps and exclamation point), apparently because they think the loudest vote wins. Category A is already widely dismissed on Wikipedia, so I won't address those arguments. Category B fails to address the argument; the delete rationale is that the film fails our notability criteria for films, not that the article is bad. The point is that no matter what happens to this newly created article (if kept), the subject is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Category C also fails to address the inclusion requirement for films. Word of mouth and Google hits are non-existant notability requirements. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the Entry for this FABULOUS movie! The movie is completely sourced. Don't censor!!! 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP: By deleting this movie from this site, you are prooving the creater of the movie correct. If anyone has a problem with what this movie stands for, you shouldn't try to ban it because freedom of speach and expression should be allowed to be practiced by anyone, especially on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.9.145 (talk) — 99.246.9.145 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 14

• Keep because it is timely and there are many other articles that talk about current events, and also because this film makes points that are quite convincing and should be discussed. If they are wrong, then it would be a great article if it proves them to be wrong, and if any of the points in the film are correct then that should be shown. I would like to see a fair discussion of the major topics made in this film. Maybe that is beyond what can be done on a Wiki page, I don't know. I for came here because I saw the movie and I wanted an honest opinion of whether it was bunk or not. --Eurlim 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Morton and Pablo above. It seems lately that Wikipedia's policies are viewed as just suggestions, and this trend is ever growing. But hey, your contributions keep it going! Forget the fact that if we fail to maintain proper standards, this encyclopedia will not be taken seriously. Well, it seems many editors lately don't care about what is good for the project, or our reputation - they just like it! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This movie is a great documentation on where alot of our history comes from, it does not twist facts or logic and is very forthright. ARE WE IN CHINA? DO NOT CENSOR THIS ARTICLE! — 97.99.100.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:54, 14 July 2007

• "KEEP" - it's really quite silly to censor this film. let people make up their own minds as to whether or not it is worthwhile. personally, i thought that there was great merit in this undertaking and i would definitely say that it was worth inclusion in wikipedia. wikipedia is not here to tell people what to think, but rather to provide a place where we can learn, and share information. once wikipedia sets foot down the path to censorship it will lose everything that makes it great.

please respect both wikipedia, and this film by allowing this entry.

thanks - P'u — P'uu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:15, 14 July 2007

• Comment - for those who think that we are censoring the article, the answer is simple: no, we are not. I don't know if the above keep !votes have been keeping up with Wikipedia policy or this AFD, but we are stating that this film is not notable, not that it is to be censored. Read, and be enlightened, before making such baseless statements. Thank you. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ: the film is reasonably to be deemed notable, even if the preconditions which are stated in the guidelines are not literally met, yet. We are not a bureaucracy^{WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY}, please follow your heart in honesty when interpreting the "rules".— Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The volume of activity on this page should prove how notable it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.78 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 July 2007

• Comment (keep) I must confess I've seen the video three times now, with different friends. I feel it's very well made. It gives one an overview while remaining easy to comprehend. I don't trust the details of the movie too much, but the broad line seems well researched.
  Apropos, "This page is 74 kilobytes long." - not bad fellow wikipedians, 75000 chars 11000 words for a movie which would be "unnotable". I wish we could spend that time on improving articles instead of discussing deleting them. To all reading this, please be aware that there seems to a zealous "Zeitgeist the Movie article inquisition" forming that will probably keep starting discussions for deletion for this article in the future almost monthly, even when this debate results in "no consensus", hoping that one time it will go unnoticed, resulting in deletion, and a consensus to recreate the article will never re-emerge. So please bookmark the article and check regularly. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• "KEEP" - I agree most of the others in this discussion, this page should be KEPT. Many improvements to this page could be made from the sources available on the film's home and I suspect that if the entry is permitted to stay on wikipedia, the relevant information will stay and the irrelevant will be purged, that's what wikipedia is for isn't it? Don't delete this article, it's too important, especially at this time in our history. As far as it's "Notability", I submit that this video has been viewed more than 455,000 times, and that's just the revised version. DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - — Trekerboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment (keep) I expect wikipedia to have information on everything, there are certainly some not so notable listings such as the aconitase enzyme page, which I imagine was easy to get "notability" for, but will be read far fewer times than this page will. — Zim_06 ♫☻♥♪ (talk)

• "KEEP" - This entry would be a an important source of reference for the documentary style movie.The movie, this entry, and all of its sources are relevant to ongoing debates about its many subjects. The only reason I can imagine for the dispute over this page is that people do not like to have certain information to be made publicly available, and may not suit their interests. In the spirit of free and open debate, please allow this page to be kept and allow readers to decide the credibility for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.1.78 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 July 2007

• KEEP Morton may make a valid argument about notability of films, but that reference does not call for deletion of the page as an appropriate action. It just establishes the notability of the film. The film is indeed in flux and gathering wider acceptance. Additionally, many newspapers are going out of business due to the fact that news is ever more increasingly being produced and consumed by way of the Internet. It would be unfair, to say the least, for such a technologically advanced resource such as Wikipedia to force printed media reviews in order to establish notability, especially in cases where the information (this film) is controversial or widely outside the realms of popular opinion. I would consider that censorship; the very thing wikipedia should be fighting to prevent given the nature of user-contributed content. Khermans 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)khermans (Kristian Hermansen)

• Comment by user Bef: Regardless of attitudes toward the content of the film, it is an attempt to inform the public of another perspective on many peoples core truths. To censor the film would be unproductive, if you disagree with the content and can refute it then work on constructing your own video which can directly refute the claims of this film.Bef 00:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP with 455,920 views of the new movie and even more for the older version this movie or subject definitly deservers a wikipedia entry, whenever things that are told in it, may be true or false.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaasje (talk • contribs) 00:12, 15 July 2007

~!~KEEP~!~ it, if any other pathetic religion can keap their non-sense speach about anything than you have no right to remove this one, cause at least it has sense and it speak truth abotu alot of stuff. If you really proof us that you are all about freedom of speach than keap this open, cause shuting it down woudl only proof us right anyway and you loose either way. Eckostream, July 14 2007 (Canada,Qc) — 66.131.240.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:40, 15 July 2007

~!~YOU CHOOSE~!~: Comments here support the film being published here on the basis of freedom and truth. I support truth news, and worry of suppression of truth, particularly the kind of topics that are presented in part two of the film: i.e. false flags and terror and suppression of people through government terror. It is important that work which questions government spin gets aired.

I looked at the notoriety criteria, and the film passes possibly one out of three, possibly not.

Unfortunately, the film is severely flawed and divisive for truth news seekers, and damages the credibility of such independent journalists in general. It is for an audience of apathetic unquestioning people.

It seems that people feel strongly that it should be published here, because it's truth news: I can understand that feeling, but it's not enough. It has to have merit, otherwise it will undermine truth. All that was published in part two of the film has been published already, but here put it together well, like a documentary with 'spiritual scholarship/authority'.

It juxtaposes in part 1 an account, contrary to the article,not merely of Christianity but all spiritual saviours, or messengers. It confuses theism or spiritual authority with dogma. That's where it's merit slumps, and is divisive for truth news. It appears to borrow wholesale from a book: The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Achrya S. And I see no criticism yet. It's not been allowed the time. So allow me here, now. Then, join with the question I raise, they are serious for outcome in reporting truth, if the film were to rise in popularity.

Now that book offers an interesting line of thought, but there's no attempt at criticism of the books' thesis, that all world religious accounts of saviours share the same myth, based in astrology and sun movements. Although the astrology numbers tie up well, there are glaring and deliberate mistakes, which amount to false propaganda. Not so much the fault of the film maker, they obviously took it up in a surge of belief - the kind they decry. But then they must answer questions concerning its scholarship. The matters are presented as important, but unfortunately that trivialises part two - the false flags. Vedantists, Muslims, Christians and other people of other books are fighting for truth and freedom too.

Let's take a closer look: e.g. concerning krishna: He was not born on the 25th: Krishna was born in the Rohini nakshatra, in the Hindu month of Bhadrapada, on the 8th day of the waning moon at midnight (about July). Yet he's included along with Jesus as an example of a fictitious myth. Yet they fail to observe and point out it doesn't actually fit the thesis of the 1st half of the film/ and the book. Quite ill-conceived. There will be many other glaring errors, but as I say presented as scholarship, served as propaganda.

It's not explicitly stated concisely, but inferred, that myths are human inventions, with no bearing in historic, or transcendental truth. Yet, transcendental events don't have to obey laws of nature, because the point is it is supernature. No mention of prophesies are made either. Or, that recurring myths are not necessarily historic falsities.

Christ and Krishna cannot be so easily dismissed as historical persons, and as sons of god or god in person. They are supposed to be freedom fighters, themselves!

It would be okay, but probably out of place in the film, for a film maker to portray their personal atheism, or other belief. Truth news activities about false flags, anti- neo capitalism and freedom fighting do not belong to atheists. An attempt a scholarly thesis by borrowing a flawed thesis of a scholar is a mistake, typical of arrogant scientists, arrogant government or naive believers

If you are a materialist, a nihilist, and if in spite of a secular/aethiest state have feeling for a unconditional spirituality, not based on dogma, the film does appear to offer slight possibility of spirit souls, which is oh so nice. But it can't unite us in spirit against world domination| we can't all be god - all be all-poweful. So what's to unite us? A oneness that doesn't exist?

The point of spirit is that it is eternal, and not the material body- mind, but transcends it, and all are joined in one. Now, if this is truth and all-powerful, why can't there be religious law, prophets, codes? Were all our forefathers, and muslims etc .. now, fools under the control of dogma? Spirit means we exist, what happens matters in the spirit of truth (the way it's done), and there is freedom from material domination; We are not here for the pursuit of material goals solely, but to live in dignity. Innocents are not to die for material goals....

Democracy is a set of rules; Ideology is Religion. The two are confused in this film, as they were in the warmakers with Iraq. It is not religion, but hypocrites who start unnecessary wars. Religion is science of spirit: it means, roughly, to recall the word, the thought of god.

I bear the film makers no ill feeling: I hope you can invite more contributors from religions to remake part one, which would have to change then quite radically. How could that fit in? Well, as I say religious people are concerned with truth and freedom. That is why Muslim societies, contrary to propaganda , have some of the most socially caring networks. Their governments, and the religious fanatics were fashioned by the west.

P.S> I was asked to save this from delete by email, after having offered constructive criticism. If a panel of experts in news and religion discuss this they might slag it off more than me. So be careful with notoriety - it may get more, but you may not like it. The film is not mature. First listen to the criticism, and think deeply. There is no harm. You are young. There are plenty of freedom fighters in god-fearing Palestine and Iraq. Go there. Listen carefully. Or you motivation may be questioned as seeking 5' of fame.

Truth news is so important for the material welfare of people, and their ability to LIVE with dignity. But I fear PC atheism is corrupting the efforts of all. It saddens me so very much. Funny that acrya S. is a hindu name, taken by western scholar of comparative religion and she can't even get the date of Krishna's birth, because it doesn't suit her thesis. Why is she sponsored by the government then? Seems truth doesn't matter to her, like many in the government. Noteriety or not, this film will have to take it's criticism, whilst intelligent, (truth seekers) exist!

Bollybosh, UK — Bollbosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:56, 15 July 2007

KEEP KEEP KEEP!!!! This entry NEEDS to be kept on Wikipedia. If it's removed then we've all given in to the forces that are presented in the Zeitgeist movie. Wether or not the movie is 100% accurate or not, at least most of the ideas presented are possible, highly likely to occur, if not entirely TRUE and PRESENT. The most important thing about this movie is that it makes the viewer stop and think and consider long-held beliefs or notions and contemplate the state of our world. THAT is the truth of this. THAT needs to be spread. Stop and think. Also, the reason religion is presented as it is in the movie is to illustrate not only the misunderstanding of some of our deepest held mythologies, but also to show that Religion has been used as a tool for the full length of the history of Mankind to Control, Deceive, and Manipulate. Stop and think. -USER: M the Mordant. mike@50footrobot.com

KEEP-- I found it informative and see no harm to keep it in here. Earthmaan1 — 76.226.140.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 15 July 2007

• Strong Delete. I have read through the entire AfD, the entire article and all it's references. I can certainly see some of the points made by the users in favor of keeping. However, that still doesn't change the fact that this is a clear violation of WP:FILM, WP:A, WP:COI and WP:WEB. I'm also troubled that the majority of the arguments to keep it are some variation on WP:ILIKEIT. Sorry, when Paramount comes asking for distribution rights, I'll change my mind. For now it's a delete. Trusilver 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "'Strong Comment Great documentary and very educational. While some of the material may offend some of my belief's or anothers, the documentary shares ideas and doesn't use opinionated comments as if they're facts. Also, from my understanding a video can legally contain copywritten material if it's a documentary. A Free documentary has no threat to Paramount, but possibly the information may threaten other institutions. Either way, i'd rather come to wikipedia for information. I would like to always feel that information on Wikipedia is not censured.
  • Strong Comment User Trusilver "Sorry, when Paramount comes asking for distribution rights, I'll change my mind. For now it's a delete." - This is EXACTLY why deleting this article is wrong. Notablity based upon $$$$$. Wikipedia guidelines notwithstanding it is ridiculous that the addition of DOLLARS would make a difference upon the notability of this film and thus decide it's fate in this encyclopedia.Vexorg 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Response. No... that's exactly why it needs to be deleted. WP:NOTFILM outlines very lenient qualifications for a movie to have an article. As such, I have yet to hear a single argument that suggests that this movie passes that policy. In fact, all but two or three of the keep positions have been WP:ILIKEIT arguments. 80% of this entire AfD have been people who have little or no experience with Wikipedia or its policies explaining how something is notable when they don't even know what the project considers notable. Trusilver 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Either the information in the movie is (largely) accurate, in which case it makes the movie important enough to warrant its own page on wikipedia. OR the movie is mostly misguided and full of misleading information, in which case a wikipedia article is a good place to refute some/many of the claims of this otherwise popular movie. At this stage, it is not our job to judge the accuracy or the validity of the claims made. As it stands today, the page is well detailed and makes for interesting reading. Future wikipedians will be able to check it and correct it so that the visitors who have previously seen the movie and came here to know more about it can get what wikipedia is supposed to give: unbiased, accurate information. AugustinMa 01:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that someone wants to pull it down proves its validity".(Mark, Melbourne Australia)

KEEP It seems one of the comments above considers that the Wikipedia page for Zeitgeist the film is in violation of certain formatting standards of Wikipedia is only a temporary cause for deleting the page. The point of Wikipedia seems to be meant to provide progress from the point of congressional consensus in any realm that any Wikipedia pages focuses on. Thus the format of the Zeitgeist page can be changed. Also the input we have seen in regard to the film Zeitgeists' subjective focus MUST BE REVALUATED. If in fact the Zeitgeist page has any right on Wikipedia to share with users of Wikipedia the contextual information pertaining to the movie - censuring such information or altering it to meet political tendons would be a diservice to the whole website - not the Zeitgeist movie page itself. I do hope that Wikipedia is stong enough of a scholarly endeavor to keep politics out of the procession of its' pages. Now, let me have a little more space here to mention my personal affectations for the benefit of the subject matter in the film, rather than the logical incorporation of the page in Wikipedia that it seems to me the film has the right to maintain.

It seems that Zeitgeist does not deny the following ideological subjects their due relevance: freedom of speech, liberty, democracy, solidarity, and spirituality.

The first part, "The Greatest Story Ever Told", does not deny the propriety of religious beliefs, nor does it condemn those with religious beliefs to spectral irrelevance. It simply presents a new historical face - a new interpretation - to the same scriptures that the same history has given us all to contemplate and toy with. With due respect to all those with stroboscopic beliefs of every kind, I think the film Zeitgeist is a welcome addition to the pantheon of already established interpretations.

The second part, "All The World's A Stage", seems to confirm that the terrorist events of recent years have been orchestrated. That is all. The film does not blame those who orchestrated them, the film doesn't even try to comprehend who might have orchestrated them. It is essentially claiming that these events are not accidents and that we participant/observers must not fool ourselves into believing they are accidental. Whoever flew those planes had reasons - HOWEVER INSANE. In order to prevent future brutal acts of terrorism, human-kind must stop pretending that many significant but horrendous actions are accidental or tangental to those of the mainstream world.

The thrid part, Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain, shows nothing new. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism - this is the same story being told. These are relatively recent an local events, concerning the Federal Reserve and its right to control or influence the economy of the United States Of America. We, the citizens of this country have not been given an official story so far as to the origin of this institution, so it is not crazy that certain people are likely to simulate an answer of some sort.

I find the film Zeitgeist to be an extraordinary and exemplary example of the previously stated realms: freedom of speech, liberty, democracy, solidarity, and spirituality.

These are all presented and I must respectfully decline the validity of any requests to take down the page for Zeitgeist the film due to any subject matter unless it is now said, when and where the film denies these realms any particle of visibility. P.S. - this was written in a rush, as I have to rush off to work, thanks for reading for now, I will be back to edit in the morning - SolarJin 02:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP IT. i showed the flim to all my friends; they all told me not to ever do something like that again. why? because EVERYONES afraid of the truth. like people whos going to delete the post. tryna hide something that's inevitable. max-singapore

• Delete - While I appreciate the work that went into the article (and into the sockpuppetry on this AfD), it is NN. I wouldn't have a problem with this being moved to user space, if that's appropriate. We just have to figure out which sock's user space to put it in. That could be a challenge. :) - Crockspot 02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP IT!!! I have watched the movie 3 times, and these are my thoughts, If Wikipedia is the so called people’s free encyclopedia, then let it be just that, It’s very simple, Someone wrote a movie, hundreds of thousands have seen that movie and enjoyed that movie and want to put some information up about that movie. so let them, if your going to pull down this movie under lack of evidence, then I suggest you do 2 things, first watch the movie your self(if you have not already), secondly start pulling down all the other things you have on Wikipedia that have no evidence , such as Santa claws and Easter buddy, right? because their not really real either but you still have them on Wikipedia, and even if you do pull it down, people we start another one, or attack your site, or the whole movie will attract more attention because it will be known as the movie that was rejected by Wikipedia, which will only add to the movies claims. (Mark, Melbourne Australia) JULY 15 12:30PM

Keep It please, I really enjoy this type of entertainment venue. The kind that speaks purported truths and actually proves it in the process. Also, I believe that since this almighty website encyclopedia must include everything, it must include a well-watched / known movie about modern america and religious aspects. That being said, leaving this article which will most likely be updated with more sources and references will prove beneficial to people who wish a more indepth look at the facts and their sources in general. (Rob, IL, US) July 14, 10pm — 68.20.177.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:07, 15 July 2007

Keep this movie. If this is deleted, this only proves the point of this movie. This movie is a phenomenon and has caught on like wildfire because it has some substantial backing proof behind it. There are books by Manly P. Hall and other people about the secret societies and knowledge out there that are common knowledge. This movie takes many of these books and puts a very good dumbed down version for the masses. (I'm not saying the movie is dumb just that some people can't read through hundreds of books to get this material). This is without a doubt a keeper for Wikipedia. It has become a part of internet culture and I wouldn't doubt that this type of material catches on fire like the "Secret" did. [Steve from Ontario, Canada July 14th 2007] — 69.156.92.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:11, 15 July 2007

Keep (of course). I have never read 'the rules', as per notability, etc., and have only cursorily scanned the comments calling for deletion, which to me seem very parliamentary procedural-ish. If in fact the letter of the law is being violated here, then here also is an excellent example of the critical importance of jury nullification. Deferring to parliamentary procedure in this case might be technically correct, but it would also be morally incorrect - a crime, in other words. Suppression of the truth, or even just the attempt to get closer to the truth, in whatever guise, is abhorent. White knight errant 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — White knight errant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep! Our society depends on it!

Pleae keep this! If you delete this then you are just another part of the problem. I can't beg you enough how much you need to keep this movie on here — 24.61.113.112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:40, 15 July 2007

KEEP THIS MOVIE!!! Not only should it not be deleted, but this movie should be mandatory material for people to see. It's not pressing what people should beleive, but it's making overlooked facts known to the public.

KEEP IT! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT MOVIE EVER MADE. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN BY OVER 1,000,000 PEOPLE. ALL SAY THE SAME THING! YOU ARE LOSERS WITH OUT THE SPINE TO WIN!!!! THIS MOVIE IS WINNI8NG US THE BEST FUTURE WE EVER HAD ON THIS PLANET. I PLANNED THIS ALL AND KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING!!!)

TIM — Gooddoggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:03, 15 July 2007

Keep

The issues raised here need to be discussed further. The facts presented match my own experience and research, and facts presented by scholars who are respected and knowledgeable in their fields. The creator of Zeitgeist presents a full set of resources/full bibliography, so the facts can be checked by anyone who is willing to spend the time educating themselves further. The sources used are to my knowledge reliable, the work is notable in its examination of the subject matter. Just because a few people don't like it doesn't make it untrue or unworthy or wider discussion.

It deserves wider viewing. Those who disagree with it are free to present their reasons why they don't, or simply just not watch it - but they have no right to deny anyone else from seeing it. - ldejongh — Ldejongh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:33, 15 July 2007

KEEP this movie - it is absolutely ridiculous to be considering removing it! This is a well-researched, beautifully produced, and important subject for consideration. We have religion pushed down our throats all our lives, and many of us have been considering and researching the subject ourselves for a long, long time. This is a concise summary of interesting facts and ideas, not a half-baked 'conspiracy theory'. Free speech is being threatened again, and it would indeed be a sad day if Wikipedia submitted to outside, bigoted pressure to remove it. In fact, I would be the last person to trust Wikipedia again as an internet research medium if it was removed. Fornequiem - Canada — 207.189.237.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:58, 15 July 2007

Keep, improve and discuss: I can't believe this is even an issue. With the rest of the other bull on here, these entries should be looked at for actual information of what the film is. Obviously it is worth discussing because of the strong response. How can you approve info on less important more offensive videos and music and not censor, but come to a subject such as this and decide to censor? It diserves, if not all in detail at least an explantion of what it is without opinionated statements but mere facts. In other words if you can not prove or disprove by looking at the actual sources that the arthur has given then do not display, nevertheless this diserves at least minimal explantion of what it is and more detailed info as it is researched. Afterall isn't that what wikipedia is about? I will seriously think twice about coming here for factual info if this is deleted. -swole

KEEP!! I am a big advocate of democracy and opinions, even opposing ones, but the references that support the movie are not only credible but substantial in volume. All of the sources that were used are written and published by credible authors and sources. This movie represents the original idea that was once this great nation of ours, before it was tainted with big business and politics that deter the "pursuit of happiness" of "we the people." In my opinion, to claim that it is a fallacy or otherwise, is to admit that one has not made reference to the subject matter. The truth is not only out there but Zeitgeist the Movie challenges you to question the references by reading them for yourself. I have yet to read a single posting that advocates deletion that is supported by proof that any part of the movie or it's sources are misrepresented or fiction. KEEP and DISCUSS!— Oigomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:01, 15 July 2007

KEEP and discuss! I took the time to sit down and watch the entire movie online recently. The main information page here, on Zeitgeist the movie is beautiful! I found the film to be slow to begin, in fact if I were editing the film, I would get rid of the prologue. When the film gets into it's Parts 1,2,3, it really does a terrific job of bringing the arguments together. I found it fascinating. We see this information all around us in 'bits and pieces', but this film presents important historical references for the citizen who is striving to get an "overview" of history in the making. I can't think of any documentary film that has provided a more comprehensive and fascinating report on the three main subjects covered in Zeitgeist the movie. After seeing this film, the viewer should go out and buy a couple of important books: "Ricardo's Law" by Fred Harrison and "The Corruption of Economics" by Professor Mason Gaffney, if they want to understand, finally, who is manipulating the economy and why. > Sageflower

KEEP THIS ENTRY: I've seen the movie, and I think this wiki entry could become a very valuable entry. It's implicitly understood that a lot of people simply can't handle the truth (no pun intended to Jack Nicholson), but they've been spoonfed information for so long that's precisely why the media, the governments, and those few people that seem to control everything are where they are today and have the kind of power they do. They prey on the ignorance of the public at large, whom they consider nothing more than sheep. This movie, and this wiki entry could become one of the major turning points in human evolution, at least from our current perspectives and ability to see how things are heading. I agree with nearly every post so far, especially those that criticize Wikipedia for even considering taking this entry offline. If they do, you can rest assured it will reappear over and over again. Face it: you have to accept the truth sooner or later, for yourself, or someone else will shove it down your throat. -- br0adband — 70.173.180.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 01:34, 15 July 2007

KEEP THIS ENTRY - Any film that causes research and independent thinking should be encouraged. I admittedly do not agree with some of the things the film discusses, but it at minimum gives me ideas to ponder and research. I find the film extremely patriotic- it's about the people of the U.S. and not those in charge. It's about questioning events that just don't add up the way they are explained. Let people watch the film, read the wikipedia article, do their own research and make up their own minds! I would also like to mention that I was shown this film by 3 different people in less than a month! All sources were friends of mine, but all from different circles. In my opinion that makes it a notable film. I haven't heard this much buzz since Terminator 2 came out in theatres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.181.36 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 July 2007

KEEP: Surely a website with the sole purpose to provide information should not remove a piece of information, especially since that website allows such things as Goku, a cartoon character from the famous Dragon Ball series... and fails to include parodies which were purposely put in the cartoon series, such as the names Kakarotto, Vegeta, Radtiz (carrot, vegetable, radish) and that of the conspiracies of Babidi, the grandchild of Bibidi, to bring forth a powerful being named Buu... bibidi, babidi, buu, a parody of a Disney song), as well as other pieces of information that are not whole and complete with absolute "bonified" credible sources. Bryan, Ca — 208.127.23.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:59, 15 July 2007

KEEP! The movie is based on a lot of new information thats hasn't been available to a larger audience since the internet. I think it's fair to leave room for sceptism, but let the page run it's course and let the readers decide if this page belongs here or not, and give the a fair period of time to do so and to let the site and it's information proove it's point. I have seen enought Wikipedia entreis related to topics that are named and talked about in this film. This page deserves to be here, for the public to decide wether or not it is of value. This is Wikipedia right? The source of open information and information-sharing? Give this site a fair ammount of time to prove it's value.

Marcel, The Netherlands! — 82.215.44.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:45, 15 July 2007

KEEP this movie-entry. The film takes a controversial position but is well researched, and provides sources for the arguments it wishes to forward. At worst the director simply needs to update these on the page. I am convinced that there are people here asking for this to be deleted who are just radicalized right-wing Christians. They do not care about Wiki's policies, 'sources' or the truth. You may not like a particular argument but you must not try and CENSOR them!

If this movie is deleted, then the entry for a film like Godfrey Reggio's Powaqqatsi, should also be removed. Whilst quite different in narative style, it still makes factual claims, principally that the West is an economic and cultural parasite on Southern-hemisphere nations, and it makes this statement with no sources whatsover.

There are many other examples of how the right-wing attempts to discredit documentary film. I personaly don't care for his work but all of Michael Moore's films have been subjected to this kind of 'this is fiction and speculation, not credible documentary' criticism.

Paul Palo Alto — Paulr1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:36, 15 July 2007

KEEP: Whether or not the movie is absolute truth or not or even partial truth is irrelevant. It brings up questions, and that inspires people to research things for themselves. Which would and has greatly affected the "hits" and traffic of internet activity to the wikipedia website, as well as other websites which the believed purpose of such websites is to provide information. Since watching this movie I have researched just about every name they mention, every character and even events, every single item of which has led me to wikipedia an other sites, books, and other sources of information. I am not alone, several of my friends, colleagues and contacts, have done the same thing.

This item does not state itself as absolute truth, it does not state itself as fact. It questions, it promotes critical thinking. 208.127.23.107 00:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Bryan, California. — 208.127.23.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

. . .

I am an historian not living in the USA. Wikipedia is distinctive as a resource because it both contains long-standing history, and history in the making. Prior to the internet, history was told by the winners, while the losers told their grandchildren. In my country (New Zealand), the government, representing the winners, is now offically apologising to Maori (the 19th century losers) for the sins of its ancestors (the 19th century winners)under claims being adjudicated through the Treaty of Waitangi. As part of that treaty claim process the official history of the nation is being rewritten. I cite this to make a point. History is not always fact.

The movie in question exemplifies the value of both the Internet and Wikipedia, in that it allows a forum not controlled by anyone, but most notably not controlled by the winners. The movie (or more accurately called a documentary - not unlike Edward R. Murrow's famous challenge to Joseph McCarthy) challenges history, starting from Christianity's rewrite when the Roman Emperor, Constantine I adopted Christianity as the official state religion and called a series of councils to officially define the Christian story, most notably First Council of Nicaea, the Wikipedia citation of which is worth reading. The points made by the movie in Part 1 appear generally consistent with my reading of that era in history, but like the red flag waved before the bull, probably were placed in this kind of a documentary for the wrong reason - the apparent alliance between a particular, growing form of religion in the United States generically called fundamentalism and domestic American politics.

Most disturbing in terms of the facts the film cites are those related to 911. It challenges the official history of 911 not through hyperventilating conspiracy charges, but use of the very same media which seems to have accepted an official line apparently inconsistent with its own video evidence. While the answers still need confirmation, the questions raised stand as valid and worthy of answering, not being shouted down.

In the internet age, distance is replaced by the speed of light. Likewise, time is compressed, especially for historical purposes. Wikipedia is not a place to debate the factual merits of the film, its author should provide a forum for that. But it is a place to document the phenomena, because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people (including myself) have now witnessed its allegations and rebuttal of the official story constitute a historical fact of some significance. The Wikipedia citation should state

(a) The name and the general content of the film.

(b) Citations of parts which are in opposition to the official approved explanation as to what happened

(c) critical questions of those citations if they do not stand up to an objective test

(d) supporting documentation where they do stand up to an objective test

Given the controversial nature of the entry, at least part should be protected by Wikipedia from vandalism by persons or institutions who wish to assert dogma or another official story.

Keep up the good work,

Akonga

New Zealand Akonga 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please KEEP this movie -- It was deleted off of youtube for various reasons . I assume because it brings forth some disturbing theories about religion and our government . SOme would say that it is a film that is not patriotic . Well deleting this is a form of censorship and to me that is being even less patriotic .I persoanlly feel this is a rather unique point of view and it should be watched . Hmm the worst it could do is to make you question the things we might think we know .The film is worth watching. Trust me the more you watch it the more it makes sense .It might even get you to wonder and go look up some of the source material your self .Its all there , go look it up in a library .

Scott Wisconsin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.211.161 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 July 2007

Please continue to make this page available. I had an email conversation with author of the movie while it was in its draft stage and was being viewed by those who knew about it. I had a problem with one of the quotes that the author had used and told him so and recommended that he thoroughly vet the quote. It was a quote I had been trying to vet for about 4 years. He took my suggestion and modified the quote to conform with what had been revealed by other researchers. I was very impressed with his forthrightness in doing so ! I recommend keeping the entry active as I suspect the "truth will out" !

Thank you,

Harvey W./Boston 68.162.211.161 00:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)— 68.162.211.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

PLEASE KEEP THIS MOVIE - If it is deleted you are depriving the public of the most essential truths.

Glen Australia — 122.26.118.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:03, 15 July 2007

KEEP ZEITGEIST'S ENTRY ALIVE - Wikipedia's sole purpose is to provide people with information. By deleting this article, Wikipedia is going against its own purpose. If people wish to view this article, then by all means they should be able to. Don't let this profound documentary go unnoticed - spread the word! Dale United Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.191.138 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 July 2007

KEEP THIS MOVIE - This is the absolute BEST movie on the subjects discussed. Everyone has the RIGHT to either view it or not. The fear we have in place in our society is because people don't know who the purpetrators of the fear is. I highly recommend the film and give it an all star rating. Please do not censor what people can or cannot read or see. Meria Meria.net — 24.121.20.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:43, 14 July 2007

"KEEP THIS!"

I live in Nor. Cal. am 28, M, I do not consent to this being deleted. Keep this. -Aa — 67.161.161.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 00:27, 15 July 2007

This information is absolutely critical to the advancement of our "on-the-brink" society. If there are items which need to be adjusted, give adequate time for people to make those adjustments. Don't can the whole deal because this material has the power to make people think in new ways and may prove a open can of worms to those who feel they are in control of the masses. Provide the service Wikipedia and KEEP THIS MATERIAL.

Ian M Cage.— 70.144.66.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:40, 14 July 2007

Keep the Zeitgeist movie entry. Everyone looks to Wikipedia for information on a number of topics. Zeitgeist is a very popular topic today and one that is likely to grow enormously in the coming months and years.

Undoubtedly, people who watch the film will be consulting Wikipedia more and more to get additional background on the movie, its creator, etc. Why would anyone want to suprress information or frustrate curiosity?

The question is not whether Zeitgeist is 'right', the question is whether or not the public will be seeking additional information about the film (and its viewpoints) and expecting to find it at Wikipedia. And we will, of course. — 76.102.13.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:51, 14 July 2007

"Keep": This entry must not be deleted, since it is a source and link to unbiased information, which otherwise is manipulated by mass media. — 217.43.37.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:18, 14 July 2007

• Comment - you know, it's amazing how many people think that, by padding this with "keep" !votes and failing to read our policies in doing this, they don't actually produce any results. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel truly sorry for the reviewing admin. This thing has become the biggest dog and pony show I've ever seen on an AfD. Most of the people coming here are uninterested in the project itself and think that this entire thing is a vote. It took me an hour to read this and block out the scores of useless comments to get to the substantive discussions that actually mean something. This entire AfD is a poster child for WP:TRUTH. Trusilver 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] subsection to make editing easier / July 15

• Delete just chiming in again to note that this article still has no reliable sources which either assert or support notability. All of the !votes for keeping this article are not based on our guidelines, and should be accordingly dealt with by the reviewing admin. Very disappointing to see this sort of behavior on Wikipedia. --Haemo 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Attack of the redlinks if I ever saw one...Anywho, no evidence of notability, as has been mentioned many times. And as is oft stated on AFDs, notability must precede article creation. Arguments that not enough time has been given to the article are irrelevant; sufficient sources have not been found because they don't exist. If the "word of mouth" on this movie moves beyond internet forums and chat rooms and into actual news media, then maybe it can have an article. Someguy1221 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In my opinion, it's not a matter of reliable sources or whatnot, but a matter of popularity. As this documentary has witnessed an explosion in views, it will only be a matter of time before it will be recreated if deleted. Trust me, I know people with far less fame with strongly standing Wikipedia articles. I know computer IC's that very few people have even heard of when compared to Zeitgeist that have Wikipedia articles. If these people, places & things with little public awareness should be allowed the right to articles, then why should Zeitgeist be denied this right? If you strike this article down, it will only bring negative reputation upon Wikipedia, & maybe even worse. As this documentary has hit such a high level of recognition in such a short time, it will only be a matter of time before more computer literate people become aware of Wikipedia deleting an article. Wikipedia can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Wikipedia at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up. --Atari2600a04:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — Atari2600a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Are you threatening the encyclopedia? --Haemo 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think he/she is. If I were an admin, I'd block this clown without thinking twice. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS MOVIE HAS BEEN SEEN BY 1,000,000 PEOPLE ACCORDING TO THE FIGURES FROM THE CREATOR. I would say that is a very large group to base my claims as a movie well worth researching and watching. The claims I make as to whether this movie is in fact the most important one ever seen just check the Google comments from viewers.

My claims can be backed up, can yours?

Put up or shut your mouthes?: Tim

This is what it means!

This is what Zeitgeist represents. Z=Freedom. Zeitgeist represents the last best chance for mankind to be free. It is the only tool I have ever found that puts it all in one place just as cop would present evidence to a district attorney. I suspect Mike R. had a hand in that. It gives us the easiest to understand presentation of the evidence I have ever found. It is the proof we have always needed to bring this scum down. Now that we have the proof in hand now we can shove it down their throats and make them admit it and do something about it. This is what has been needed and it is the best I have found. Attorney's especially should be gearing up for this. They also need to figure out what law will be like in a free world. Just think of the great opportunities in a free thinking world for everyone. Much less stress, better health care, Better chance for a good life. What is to think about? This revolution is a peaceful one, start the legal process now so you are ready. You now have the proof you have needed to start doing so. Can't you feel it coming, start taking your breaths of freedom, it will be here soon. If you saw me you would never in your life believe I was capable of this. I am a true antihero that the world has treated with disdain for the most part. Being alone mostly I had a lot of time to study many things and learned them well. I once read that Nostra Damus had predicted a time when there would be a fool who would cause the death of thousands. After that someone would come who would a time of peace that will last for a 1,000 years. I believe Al Gore is that man. It would be a time when man would achieve as never before. A time of total peace and advancement. I kind of figured it out that this would happen in my life time so I began to learn what I needed to know so I would recognize when it was time. I had seen your movie before and kept it in the back of my mind. I kept watching the political situation and realized it was now or never. I chose 4th of July weekend, July 1st as the best time. I knew they would be asleep at the wheel. I knew Craigslist provided the base population I needed and was the safest site with worldwide audience. I kept posting and was surprised that my adds stayed there for 6 days, no deletions. Then they started after I called in on Michael Malloy. By that time I had over 260,000 people who saw it. 200.000 more since I started the campaign. I knew it was already too late for them. On the 10th I had the battle posting adds everywhere asking for lawyers to investigate the crimes exhibited in the movie. Fortunately I was able to post faster than they could erase. When I had won in DC I knew we all had won! I know full well what I have done. No matter what happened to me I know I have done a very good thing.

Tim'

_________________

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.