The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. BigDom 00:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Addendum[edit]

Zeitgeist: Addendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted back in 2009, on the basis of no notability and no reliable sources. Notability still hasn't been established and admin User:Nyttend refused a speedy deletion request. Sloane (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Weak Keep Should take Zeitgeist: Addendum combine it with Zeitgeist: Moving Forward and either merge into Zeitgeist: The Movie to cover all three Zeitgeists or into The Venus Project perhaps as a discussion of the efforts to promote the project. Either way, I suggest including Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in this AFD as it currently has a proposed deletion. Monty845 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Or maybe merge into The Zeitgeist Movement, that would probably make the most sense. There is a small amount of coverage on some high quality, reliable blogs, but not really much to make a claim of independent notability. Monty845 (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the 2009 deletion, quite a bit of coverage became available in reliable sources that are not blogs... in such WP:RS as Chicago Sun-Times, National Business Review, Times of India, Tagesspiegel, RTV Slovenija, TA3, Trouw, Cotidianul, Jakarta Post, The New York Times, Trikalanews, Resource Investor, Económico, and quite literally dozens more. It is that persistance of coverage that notability is all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still worried about the sourcing on notability, but I don't have a strong opinion on merging, just wanted to avoid an outright delete, which I thought was likely as due to the questionable notability. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I declined the G4 speedy because it was not applicable: the content is substantially different from any version that was deleted at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge: I'd be okay with a merging. The movies themselves seem to be struggling with independent notability. --Renegade78 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie, keep the movies in one article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Independent notability is independent notability... else we'd be merging Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4 etal to Rocky 1. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- JN466 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are several references on Google, 4074 user ratings on IMDb and even a few mentionings on Google Books which is quite good for a fairly new movie. If there is a problem with reliable sources then tag the article accordingly and/or WP:SOFIXIT. Why merge this one when most films have their own articles? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. jonkerz♠ 01:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:Nyttend was absolutely correct to refuse a speedy, and just as the G4 speedy did not apply, the world has continued to move on since the original article's deletion in February of 2009. And, since that deletion, the film has recived a great deal of additional coverage in unquestionably reliable sources to show an independent notability and its meeting of WP:NF to merit a seperate artcle as a seperate film. A search for post-February 2009 articles finds wide reaching coverage in such as Chicago Sun-Times, National Business Review, Times of India, Tagesspiegel, RTV Slovenija, TA3, Trouw, Cotidianul, Jakarta Post, The New York Times, Trikalanews, Resource Investor, Económico, and quite literally dozens more[1] ...sources that did not exist at the time of last deletion. We do not need to agree to the subject matter, as our inclusion threshold is verifiability, not truth... and independent notability is independent notability. Or will we be the next such AFD suggest that Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4 etal should all be merged and redirected to Rocky 1? Yes, these easily found sources should be added to the article, but as they do exist, independent notability is established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since you claim reliable sources exist, can you please post them here so we can discuss them? Simply naming a few publication isn't actual proof that sources exist.--Sloane (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the post-February 2009 g-news link I offered above specifically included the news sourcs I listed and more, it's far easier per WP:SOFIXIT to expand the article and add sources as I go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Couldn't agree more with Schmidt. Gonchibolso12 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets GNG, due to robust RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie, not enough independent notability to sustain an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable. Five "sources". One source is the video itself. Two other sources are about the third film, not this film. The remaining 2 sources contain a combined three sentences about the film. Ehdrive (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always problematic to opine on current state when there are so many more sources available[2], sources that did not exist in February 2009, that DO address the film directly and in detail, to allow a reasonable presumption that further improvements are possible. Meeting WP:NF and WP:GNG do not require that the article be immediately improved, only that in can be over time and with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a reason why WP:GOOGLEHITS is relevant here. A quick glance at the search you linked finds most of those results from 2011 are comments on articles unrelated to Z:A; others are just blog posts. Trying to claim that there are "many more" sources based on that search is misleading. At least bother to check the sources before making a claim like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did, and find your dismissiveness to be insulting and rude. But as WP:GNG and WP:NF are met, I will rely on others more willing to actually look, than simply spout. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't "rely on others." If there are valid sources, please add them to the article. So far, I see none in your Google search. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets GNG, due to robust RS coverage. But i would not mind having all the zeitgeist movies from the Zeitgeist Series in one article, but simply merging them to Z1 would not do, The Zeitgeist Movement is not directly related to those films either, it should be noted that the Z-series by Peter advocate TZM but are not TZM. Check the Zeitgeist Orientation for more information on what is TZM: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaby 64 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Plenty of coverage, but maybe not notable enough to each warrant separate articles. Captain panda 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.