Talk:Zeitgeist/Archive 1

message: This is a discussion page for the Zeitgeist article and not about restoring the movie. Any future discussion about the movie must be at Wikipedia:Deletion review. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the consensus was to KEEP the article, but it was deleted anyway and protected from being created again. It's really crazy that one of the reasons they gave for shutting it down was because it was "not yet notable" as you mentioned, yet it seems that its' notability is evident by how many times people to tell others NOT to post about it. Regardless, there should be a link or something added to either this page, or the disambiguation page concerning the documentary. --Trekerboy 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand what AfDs are for. It's NOT a majority vote; it's the discussion that really decides it. -WarthogDemon 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because someone has watched it does not make it notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. Overall, it fails WP:NOTE. -WarthogDemon 22:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has policies defining what is notable: see WP:N (general requirements), WP:MOVIE (specific requirements for films) and/or WP:WEB (specific requirements for web content). There are a number of reasons for these policies, but not least is that content on Wikipedia should be verifiable, so if a subject hasn't been discussed by reliable sources (as opposed to blogs or web forums) it simply isn't possible to write a good article about it. Iain99 07:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I generally remove external links to content which would not meet WP:N.  We (myself and two other editors) have in fact done just that for the entire section that the Zeitgeist Movie links were previously included in.  That, though not uncommon practice, to my knowledge is not policy.  However, the WP:EL link that I did include is a guideline and the most relevant section is Links normally to be avoided, #13.  Also please sign your comments using four tildes and argue based on content, rather than making personal accusations.  Thanks! Scott.wheeler 23:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: based on autoblocks, HumanPandemic is a likely sockpuppet account. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. Furthermore, non-notable amateur documentaries by conspiracy theorists hardly qualify as "notable." -WarthogDemon 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Disambiguation for what? An external link? It fails WP:EL. Plus the word itself isn't enough to make something notable... -WarthogDemon 07:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. -WarthogDemon 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If that's how you feel about it go to WP:DRV. Other than that, I doubt Wikipedia is going to treat conspiracy theories as if they were hard solid facts anytime soon. -WarthogDemon 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie 

message: Myself an many others are very upset with the censoring of any acknowledgement the Zeitgeist film.  Maybe I am a bit dense, but I don't understand the logic that is going on behind the decision.  Hardly anyone I know has ever heard of the chupacabra ("goat sucker") which is a creature that is said to exist in the southern half of the Americas.  This legend is supported by less than half the evidence that bigfoot has and a small fraction of the number of believers.  This creature has a relatively lengthy page here on wikipedia, though a film which raises legitimate questions about censorship and the government being the metaphorical "man behind the curtain" is left out all together.  All that has to be said is a short paragraph acknowledging its existence, not necessarily supporting it since noone has really tested the theories yet.  I find it hard to believe that any information is too obscure to be worth offering access to.  I went to the page describing film "notability" requirements and do not see how it could be used as defense:
Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun.
Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per notability guidelines.
This has not been publicly released on hard copies to my knowledge.  If anything, this supports the idea of making a small acknowledgement on the Zeitgeist term page.
--Theseanze 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Censorship 

message: I am confused also about why this is being censored.  There was mention that it is not out on "hard copy" yet, and this is the reason it can not be mentioned.  The movie is out on DVD, it is just an underground film not copyrighted or owned by any large corporation so as to prevent government involvement in it's production and composition. There is no reason this should not be allowed to be mentioned in the zeitgeist listing on Wikipedia.   Please enable edits on this topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lame art (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeitgeist Movie Censorship