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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Nomination has been withdrawn and only one delete !vote, consensus is to keep the item or merge it over, of which the discussion can take place on the talk page of the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 03:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward[edit]

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

There is a lack of third party reliable sources to establish notability. Smallman12q (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination...Smallman12q (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There are plenty of available sources that can work as references, but the issue is notability, which this article does not seem to establish. As I mentioned in the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (3rd nomination), these articles should be merged into one of the related article, Zeitgeist: The Movie to cover the 3 movies, or The Zeitgeist Movement/The Venus Project to provide information about the efforts to promote their activities. Monty845 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would be fine...Smallman12q (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is to be merged (and I don't see anything salveageable) it'll be best to put it in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article. Which seems the only article of this kind to actually have proper sources.--Sloane (talk) 22:19, 7 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]
- Comment Can you share the reliable sources that led you to conclude this?--Sloane (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie. Ravensfire (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~USA Today, The Guardian and BBC, lack of third party reliable sources??~~ I utterly fail to see any issue with the notability of this film (e.g. 5,702 user ratings on IMDb and countless mentionings elsewhere). Most films have their own articles, why merge this one? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (3rd nomination). jonkerz ♠ 01:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Sentence stricken out. jonkerz ♠ 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article aren't for the film...rather they're used to source what the film states. As such, they don't assert the film's notability.Smallman12q (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Required per WP:V. And that so many sources do offer commentary about the film IS the independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallman12q: Whoops, you're absolutely right. Apparently I didnt do my homework well enough. I hate to be a stickler, but I'm still standing by my keep !vote. The film has been review by The Wessex Scene [1] and Blogtalkradio [2]. I am aware that these reviews are far from perfect, and actually pretty bad, but at least it is something. jonkerz ♠ 15:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why merge is needed. Every film has importance and notability by itself. By the way, this last film have had a lot of notability in the press. Gonchibolso12 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability_(films).Smallman12q (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a radical change of approach, style, content and intention from the other two films. Also, there is enough material to have a dedicated Wikipedia entry. Having the articles merged would only increase the confusion to the reader. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per having sourcable independent notability meeting WP:NF. 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 the next such AFD suggest that Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4 etal should all be merged and redirected to Rocky 1 ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The films in the Rocky (film series) have sufficient reliable coverage that they each warrant their own article.Smallman12q (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as does this one. Independent notability is independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good - then show us some reference about the notability of this film. Saying it's so doesn't cut it. None of the sources demonstrate notability. It's part of the Zeitgeist series which is notable, but this film individually isn't notable. Ravensfire (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist Moving Forward returns over 12 million results on Google, how can you possibly say it isn't notable? Buck Bumble returns about 64,000. Why isn't anyone questioning the notability of that article? Because nobody gives a fuck about Buck Bumble. As I've said in the Zeitgeist Movement AFD, this seems to be more of an issue about personal disagreement rather than objective qualification. --Renegade78 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to satisfy the notability objection is to find a few specific examples of coverage (not just passing references) from either the main stream press or from blogs (that are well established, independent and exercise editorial control over their content), and provide links here. Monty845 (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade78 - that's ducking the question, see WP:GHITS. Find some mainstream, detailed reviews about the film. Look through the Wikipedia:Notability_(films) for what's needed to show a film as notable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article returned from a Google Scholar search [3]. There seems to be a published book on it as well, not sure if it's inpedependant of the subject though [4]. I gotta admit, the plethora of sources seem to be of quantity rather than quality. --Renegade78 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link seems to be some guy's blog (never blindly trust Google) and the second link is to an online sale of a book on Zeitgeist: The Movie, not Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. Keep in mind also, that having an accompanying book, doesn't suddenly make a movie notable.--Sloane (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge There's not a single reliable source present. --Sloane (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zeitgeist: The Movie, not enough independent sources to sustain notability for a stand-alone article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the reasons for the deletion article to be mainly premature based on notability issue that when people give notabilities they are automatically thrown out without any consideration of the source itself. This article has actually several times been flagged for reasons of being a promotion article, lacking sources for it's claim even though it is a basic summary of the film's content, written from a fans point of view, claims of original research, etc... This I view nothing more and nothing less as a continual attempt at people with a personal vendetta to get the film's notability cut. I have personally talked to someone on Skype and said he would use multiple accounts on wiki to flag this article until it gets taken down. However he did not even bother to give me his account names and this was a month ago so I don't even remember what his Skype name was. I vote we keep the article also because out of time constraints for notabilities of an online film to be had, however for those in favor of merging the film with Zeitgeist: the Movie may also do so and I see nothing wrong with it so long as people are willing to allow a separate article if the notability of the film becomes more so where it warrants a separate article. I do strongly suggest we keep this article due to the amount of unneeded and unwarranted flags that this article has received. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Should remain and be expended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.151.158 (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is WikiPedia an Internet REFERENCE whose purpose is to provide free and factual information on a given subject? Yes

Is Zeitgeist: Moving Forward a movie made by Peter Joseph with the four parts listed? Yes

If someone who has not watched the movie yet instead read this article first, would the article give an accurate summary of the content of the movie? Yes

Is the movie controversial in its content which has created large Internet groups both in favor of and in opposition to it? Yes

Is WikiPedia in the business of censoring information which explains what the subject is about because it is controversial.. ??? Gravitas73 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether it's factual or not. The issue is independent notability, and there really isn't enough to warrant its own article --Renegade78 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge There is quite a bit of coverage of these movies, but they still might not be notable enough to each warrant separate articles. Captain panda 07:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least 4 critical reviews that have been published in print and on the web to my knowledge. There are more than a half-dozen positive reviews that have also been published. It is just a matter of someone creating a Reception section for the article and including this information. It would be nice if those people who want to delete or merge this article could spend some time researching the films notability so the same two or three editors (myself included) don't have to continuously monitor and update the article.86.52.11.235 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as has been asked multiple times, GIVE US THE LINKS TO THOSE REVIEWS! THAT'S what we're looking for that's missing - independant reviews from notable sources that meet the WP:RS requirements. I've looked, and I can find lots of reviews on blogs and the usual Zeitgiest army, but nothing independant. You say they exist - show me. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There. I hope everyone agrees that the reviews I included in my latest edit are notable enough. There should be no reason to delete or merge this article any longer.178.155.130.195 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:02, 14 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.