Talk:Zeitgeist: Addendum

merge

Since the Articel "Zeitgeist Addendum" to which Venus Project was supposed to be merged with does not exist any more, it is natural that the latest is restored. Let's try to improve it. From the 15th of March 2009 Venus Project wil be discussed all over the world. Nobody has the right to just erase it. But you can allways contribute to it..

Just follow the redirect, use the talk page there, and see if those editors are keen to merge. But this article has been deleted via a deletion discussion, so it's not a candidate. - brenneman 10:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It sure can for a second time. After all any group or editors may make a mistake or arrive to a conclusion too fast or without full consent. Let's not rush this time. Both Venus Project and Zeitgeist Addendum are very much in global discussion and worthy of being in WP. Sometimes argumentation of Notability can become very dismissive and subjective. --Fbobolas (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so the place to take this discussion is either deletion review if you think that it bears re-examination. Or, as I suggested above, use the talk page of Zeitgeist, the Movie. But given that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venus Project there was literally no support for this as a stand-alone article, and that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum resulted in delete, by simply re-creating the article you're ignoring two consensus gathering excercises. - brenneman 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for deletion nor will there ever be. Merging the articles does not equate to deletion. 84.104.135.141 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has began where you suggested. However I see as reasonable that a deleted article may be resubmitted if lots of people back it and has been reconstructed with new and better content. We live in a world where total knowledge doubles every two years. A decision on particular article deletion may be outdated quite fast. We'll try to go with the formal procedures, but let's not forget that those procedures, as well as you guys as admins, should serve the substance of our collective knowledge. --Fbobolas (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging 2 films is rather crazy?

I see a ... drum roll.... conspiracy! 84.104.135.141 (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article to which Zeitgeist: Addendum redirects discusses a different film. There should at least be a section devoted to the sequel's plot. Attys (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't Merge, Don't Delete

This film deserves its own page. Reasons:

-Started The Zeitgeist Movement, an organization international in scope with tens of thousands of members.

-The Zeitgeist Movement identifies more with Zeitgeist: Addendum than Zeitgeist: The Movie.

-It is "the activist arm" of The Venus Project, another organization with interesting ideas.

-It contains at least thought provoking ideas. The fact that the ideas are not orthodox just makes them more deserving of being covered in Wikipedia.

-Winning the Artivist Film Festival award is significant. Seems to qualify it as notable. And, this is a form of reference by a third party.

-Zeitgeist:Addendum is one of the most watched videos on Google Videos (note: Google has stopped allowing users to see the rankings of videos by watch count)

-"[Peter] Joseph was the subject of a New York Times article shortly after the 2009 Zeitgeist Day as well as numerous interviews by radio hosts and independent media journalists" - from the "Peter Joseph" Wikipedia page. Obviously, Peter Joseph was interview because of the movie he made, so this is more support for the notability of Zeitgeist: Addendum.

-On the topic of notability, there are a number of debunking articles on other sites, which is another form of third party reference.

-It deserves to be subjected to the same criteria for getting its own page as other movie sequels. How could one argue that Zeitgeist: Addendum does not deserve its own page but these movies do? All Dogs Go to Heaven 2, Aladdin 2 (Return of Jafar), Beethoven's 2nd, etc. etc.Dustin184 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for Addendum are the same for any sequel (indeed, any topic, anywhere, ever), which is notability. Has addendum itself (not its director, not the movement) received substantial coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This film is at least as notable as the other sequels I mentioned, so if they are notable enough to have their own page, this should as well. The fact that the movement it started is notable makes the film notable. Do you disagree with that? Also, as I stated before, the director is notable because this film that he made is notable. In the other points I posted above, I show that indeed, it has received substantial coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources. Do you think it needs more to be notable?Dustin184 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)