Deletion of Zeitgeist the Movie

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTFILM||WP:WEB)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: No reliable sources to establish notability so delete as per  with no prejudice to recreation if reliable sources are found
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

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! Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif &#151;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCKS)

Comment: Please read 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)

Comment: The web notability criteria notes three independently sufficient conditions for website notability (). 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CENSORED)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Per  "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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE)

Comment: 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, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: I searched to see if this has any |reliable source coverage, such as on http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&client=firefox-a&hl=en&hs=dAb&rls=org.mozilla%3Aar%3Aofficial&q=%22Zeitgeist%20the%20Movie%22 Google News and got zero results
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTFILM||WP:WEB)

Comment: Fails  ,  , and  .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:A||WP:NOTFILM)

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.  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Search engine test (WP:GOOGLE||WP:N)