Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (2nd nomination)

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.

This probably needs to be stressed more often: The parenthetical notability guidelines do not overrule the parent guideline. Note that it says right in the film guideline As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. Further, the "won an award" bulleted item has this footnote: This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. Thus, when an item has only an award to hold onto, and you're debating if the award is notable enough to "justify" the article's existance, you're not only missing the spirit of the guideline, you're missing the letter as well.

The general notability guideline is clearly not satisfied for this article. None of the references provided are from reliable sources. The award itself does not automatically confer notability, per the above.

brenneman 12:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist: Addendum

[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

At the last AFD, this article was kept as "no consensus" because a number of !voters believed that winning an award in a minor film festival made it notable, and others felt it was wrong to delete an article on such a new topic, and wanted the opportunity for the article to be improved. Well, its almost four months later, and this article has not surpassed its most significant issue: the complete absence of reliable sources. The only seemingly reliable sources given in the article are either reprints of press releases, mention Zeitgeist only in passing, or are actually about the film festival it appeared in or one of the topics covered within. The only secondary coverage of the film comes from conspiracy theorists, and not reliable publishers. Zeitgeist addendum very plainly fails the basic definition of notability, that it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a single reliable source present. Also, there's already an article on Zeitgeist, the Movie. We don't need an article on an "addendum" of a movie, this sort of stuff can fit perfectly in the original article. --Peephole (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of course. It's a separate movie, with different content. If it is'nt Notable, then all other movies from the same festival should also be afd'd, as many of them also exist on Wikipedia. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you're talking about this festival, very little of the movies mentioned have their own article. And those that do, have an article because notability was established independent of the festival in question. --Peephole (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, just as does this one in such independent sources as Ctnics Unlimited, Daily Paul, Freedom Force, Northwest Nerdcore, Disclose, Bleeping Herald, Khyron, Heyoka Magazine, Conspiracy Science, and others. I'm not much for conspiracy theories... but coverage is coverage. Certainly you won't find Washington Post reviewing this film... but then you won't find articles about Barrack Obama at Nerdcore. Sources must be considered in context to the subject. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: "Sources must be considered in context to the subject." - No, they don't. All we need are reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V). What you posted were all blog posts. --Peephole (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not see them as such. The GNG specifically states "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability" and "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred". You are certainly entitled to your opinion of what this means. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: The problem is that by that standard, my friends and I could put our personal reviews of some random movie on our blogs, and suddenly that film is notable. That part of WP:FN was not meant to lower the bar of reliability for films outside the mainstream. Indeed, that would actually defeat the very purpose of the notability guideline. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: From WP:Verifiability (official policy) "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources."--Peephole (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me save people some time... Cynics Unlimited = a self-described blog; Daily Paul = a forum; Freedom Force = the writer's own site; Northwest Nerdcore = self-described blog; Disclose.tv = video sharing site; Khyron = the writer's own site; Conspiracy Science = the writer's own site. That leaves the Bleeping Herald, an e-zine, and Heyoka, an online art magazine with a regular staff. Note that the review in question was not written for Heyoka, but is copied from Infowars, which copied it from Freedom Force. WillOakland (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as film has an independent notability beyond its parent article and can survive with no dependence on the former for notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:NF, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Multiple coverage in sources independent of the film have been offered, and per W:GNG, "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability". And again, I personally have no use for conspiracy films or theories. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the festival is notable, there is no evidence that the film inherits notability from it. You can call us deletionist bastards, but that doesn't change the fact that no good sources have been provided. There isn't enough here to write a good article. --Phirazo (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) --Phirazo (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahh.... but is it wins an award from a notable festival that DOES indicate that it may be notable per guideline WP:NF: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". So it does not borrow notability.... it gains its own. And is an indicator that a source not available this very second may exist tommorrow, or may as yet have not been brought forward. There is no WP:DEADLINE after all... and articles about conspracy theory films don't usually grace the front page of the New York Times. However, specially when one considers that it was chosen as opening film at a notable festival, it may be safe to presume that more and better sources will become avaialable. If the article is to grow and prosper, it must be nurtured... not pulled out as if a weed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who can translate the following non-english sources: e-consulta (Spanish), medium4you (Belgium), gunel (Turkey)? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:14, 7 February 2009 (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.