Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Joseph (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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Joseph[edit]

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

Article on conspiracy theorist Peter Joseph. This article has a single reliable source, a New York Times article [1] covering mostly an event organised by his group The Zeitgeist Movement. Note that his group already has a Wikipedia article (also pretty weakly sourced, in part by the aforementioned NYTimes article). The notability criteria on people at WP:BIO specifically call for "multiple published, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". This article clearly fails this. A further Google search reveals little more than trivial mentions in relation to this movies. No real in-depth articles describing this person seem to exist. What little information that exists on this person can perfectly be covered in already existing articles. Sloane (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - founder of a notable movement and a producer of docu-films. Off2riorob (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The question isn't whether his movies or movement are notable. The question is whether the person himself has any notability. No sources have been found that prove this so far. Even if his work does, notability isn't inherited.--Sloane (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Considering that another article titled The Zeitgeist Movement has been suggested to be merged with this one I would imagine that it would be best to keep it. Especially considering that this might even be a method of trying to get both articles removed. I myself am not opposed to the issue of merging that article with this one, but if we are to do so... it might be a good idea to keep this one. To be honest though, the notability is a bit lacking at any rate about the person in question (even though I would disagree, but my disagreement is based on personal opinion, and thus has no place for dispute).Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that, for the most part, he wrote, directed, edited, scored, the most watched online films in the history of the internet, I think the article should stay. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The nominator voices concern with the article having only one reliable source. But as there do seem to be "multiple published, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" actually available,[2][3] that speak toward the individial that have not (yet) been used, it would seem that the WP:GNG is met and this is more a matter for improvement through regular editing that not one requiring deletion. A merge discussion can certainly be continued on the article talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've linked to Google News, can you link us to actual valuable articles?--Sloane (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The link that Michael provides is a list of articles that pop up about Peter Joseph and his films or the movement he has created. The first article that comes up is the obvious New York Times article, the second one is an article about his documentary in 2007 that won the artivist film festival which is from Sys-Con Media. To say this link just goes to google news is very dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceofreason467 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No, it literally just links to Google News, where I can find little more but the NYTimes article and a number of press releases, like from the artivist film festival. All that remains are reviews of the Zeitgeist films where his name is passingly mentioned as the creator. It's hard to write proper articles without decent sources.--Sloane (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets general notability requirements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient news coverage demonstrates notability. Agree with MQS that merge discussion can be had after AfD closure.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just love to say delete, to force voters to actually add reliable sources to the article, but that is not allowed under DEL, which specifically restricts deletion to articles that cannot be sourced. I just wish delete voters and closers would read that part. I suggest that if this comes up for deletion again, and reliable sources have still not been provided for the article, then it should be considered that sources effectively cannot be sourced. Anarchangel (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Central figure in a major movement, creator of documentaries watched by millions, producer of radio broadcasts, lecturer, etc, etc. I don't pretend to concern myself with sourcing as an editor, I'm more a janitor, but he is in the news enough to prove notability. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 02:06, 31 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.