Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 23 September 2014

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This has been to AfD twice already, twice it was kept. But I am not convinced. First of all, it reads like a hit piece, and it's worth pointing out that the creator and main editor of the article is topic-banned from the area of "new religious movements". Anyway, here's the argument: it is essentially POV, and it's not notable by our standards. My apologies for this lengthy AfD rationale.

POV: the Background section is totally UNDUE for an article on a documentary, and contains nothing but negative information on the subject of the documentary; that section, though well verified, is not neutrally written and way too long. The section on the "on-screen commentators" is essentially like the plot summary for a work of fiction, except that here it serves to restate what's in the documentary: that this Landmark business is terrible. This violates NPOV, in my opinion. There is more suggestion and soapboxing in "Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission", where again bringing up the "plot" of the documentary serves to dish out negative info about this "cult", and note the damning "coincidentally" section, with its suggestions of suggestions that the French government deemed Landmark a cult ("suggests" is the operative verb of the second sentence, but the reference is primary: hence "suggests" is OR/synthesis).

Now, it will be argued that the documentary is notable because of the scandal associated with it, but you will find that an overwhelming number of sources for that section are primary sources, besides a couple of non-notable blogs. In other words, I am not convinced that a. this was so important and b. besides, it's not the documentary but the actions of Landmark that caused this consternation--which suggests that the thing be merged in Landmark Worldwide.

Finally, the GNG--I can't find anything in Google Books, and this is already ten years old. A regular Google search produces a blog or two from 2004-6, but nothing, really nothing that says anything meaningful about the documentary, and nothing reliable. In a previous AfD it was stated that 1.5 million people watched this documentary when it was on TV, as if that is enough for notability, but even that is not verified, certainly not in the article.

No, at best this warrants mention in the Landmark article. It reads like a hit piece, with notability supposedly established by the blue-linked people interviewed in it, by the reliable sources that actually pertain to the organization, and by supposed controversy over the club trying to stop distribution by the internet (kind of equivalent to BLP1E, one might say). Without sources that actually discuss the documentary, and with its tendentious and undue content, this needs to be deleted.

Just to make things clear: I have nothing to do with this club, nor with any organization that charges money to make people think they feel good, but I do not wish to see Misplaced Pages used as a tool. Not this kind of tool anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Addendum: I said "mention in the Landmark article" might be appropriate; I see now that there's also Landmark Education litigation as a possible target for a merge (I had no idea there were so many "related" articles). What content is to be merged, though, needs rigorous secondary sourcing: I notice with some trepidation and dismay that the litigation has, at best, 3 1/2 secondary sources--the rest is all primary material and various website. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong keep. After reading the nomination, when I clicked through I expected to see an article that was a poorly-sourced mess. I did not find that. I found an article that, while it could do with some cleanup, is well-referenced and is about a clearly notable documentary. I normally lean towards deletion on questionably-notable articles--sometimes even jumping the gun in recommending deletion. However, this is an easy call, in my view, and might even qualify as a speedy keep. This article isn't even close to qualifying for deletion. LHM 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly do not understand how you can say this is well-referenced. Which of the existing references are about the documentary? Which establish the documentary as notable in any way? I have wasted spent almost an entire day going through, translating, searching for archives, etc. and I have not found a single one of these references to be a reliable source providing context or establishing notability for this. It looks like an attack piece that did not get any notoriety even with the local media, let alone any lasting significance or impact. Please provide examples from the article that demonstrate that it is well-sourced. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep notable documentary about Landmark Education. Many sources. Has been written about in governmental sources, news sources and other secondary sources. i count around 42 notable secondary references, despite the nominator's pruning.

Zambelo; talk 09:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Here's a challenge, Zambelo. Find me one single news source, just one, from a reliable source, not some advocacy website, that discusses the documentary in any kind of depth--not one that just mentions it in the context of some lawsuit. Or even in that context! One trustworthy source with significant coverage, "directly and in detail", as required by the WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuits are proof enough of notability. They were high-profile cases involving the EFF, and then there is also the litigation against at least one of the participants on the show - Jean-Pierre Brard. Misplaced Pages:Notability describes notability as:

• "Significant coverage" - yes, it's a national broadcast in France, and broadcast to many francophone countries.
• "Reliable" -yes
• "Secondary sources" - yes
• "Independent of the subject" - yes
• "Presumed" - well, there was no prior discussion, the article was simply nominated for deletion.

The documentary is discussed in the context of the lawsuits - not only was this a popular show, it was made even more popular by the subsequent lawsuits. References to either are perfectly valid. Zambelo; talk 23:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• • You completely misunderstand everything. You're saying it's notable because it was on TV, but I asked you for "significant coverage" in, ahem, secondary sources. So really, your answer is, "no, I don't have any secondary sources". And what you just added to the article, that's WP:SYNTH--I removed it again, because we simply cannot do that. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of secondary sources in the article. Zambelo; talk 07:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But none of them discuss your documentary. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

All of them do. Just not in the context you are looking for. Zambelo; talk 17:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete At first glance, it might look like there are a lot of sources here, but it's all smoke and mirrors - many of the article's sources predate the event in question, and so aren't about the show itself, a couple others are at the time of the show, and the rest are either or not notable or all about the internet kerfluffle and not the show itself. There are actually only a couple of reliable sources about the show itself, all from at the time, and thus all in line with the one event policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the article is well referenced. Mion (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mion: - Can you provide an example of a reliable secondary source in the article that is about the film? Tgeairn (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - there are plenty of sources about this film and its impact. However, this really has to be trimmed down; much of the facts are irrelevant to the film itself. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we please be provided with some reliable references that actually discuss the documentary? For starters, Bearian and others, look at this version. And then see what's left, and how much of the content that's left has secondary sourcing that's about the actual documentary. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that I removed, really removed, two highly problematic sections from the article, containing synthesis and based on highly doubtful sourcing (if based on anything at all). See the sections "Repercussions and "Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission" on the article talk page. AfD or not, we simply cannot have what an uncharitable editor might call "POV pushing." And the more I look at this, the more I am dismayed. I just removed a few External Links that are clearly not directly relevant or incorrectly listed (duplicates). Drmies (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Clearly undue weight to a tv program of transient interest, inadequately referenced, and clearly only created as part of pushing a specific agenda. DaveApter (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - The nominator has presented the case for deletion clearly, but to add or repeat:

1. The Background section is completely UNDUE and unnecessary. This text (and the 14 sources that support it) is entirely about something that is at best remotely indirectly related to the video. Nothing here fits with anything that should be in an article about this film (See MOS:Film)
2. The film itself does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NOTFILM. Specifically, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
3. The film itself does not meet any of the exception criteria at WP:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability
4. The sources provided are almost exclusively one or more of:

• related to the production or distribution (which are specifically disallowed by WP:Notability_(films)#Reliable_sources for establishing notability)
• primary sources which support the names, titles, job descriptions, or works of the cast (and Notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED)
• press releases - which are never useful to establish Notability
• not about the film - such as the EFF citations which are about a DMCA takedown notice, not primarily about the film which is necessary to establish Notability

I attempted to edit the most egregious of the poor sourcing out of the article, and we were still left with an article that had absolutely zero secondary sources to establish the Notability of the film. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong about the EFF, see ] which is all about the movie and how the movie should be removed from the internet, the EFF is a proper secundairy source, this movie was all over the news in 2004. Mion (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We have here the LA times covering the showing up of the movie on youtube ,LA times is a proper secundairy source. Mion (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those sources are about the video. The EFF page is about "Landmark's Misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (the video is only mentioned as background) and the LA Times article is about "Google Inc.'s video service faces at least one copyright infringement lawsuit", which is about Google and financial liability. The LA Times article then references EFF and the DMCA notice which then references the video. We need to have sources that are actually directly about the video (not that mention it). --Tgeairn (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Reuters i cant think of a better source, all these sources are only there because of this video, it is why this video was so important in the news, try to read them.Mion (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That (Reuters) is the exact same article as the LA Times one (syndicated). Again, it is clearly about copyright infringement and possible financial liability. The article even says that Google declined to comment on a link to the Landmark/EFF case. THEN we get a mention of the EFF case and the video. This is not an article about the video. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

of course its all about this video, without it there would be no copyright infringement and possible financial liability from this video, what you are saying is like a news article about a car accident that there is no car in the article as the article also mentions personal injury. Mion (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The documentary here is being discussed in relation to the high-profile cases brought against Landmark as well as the litigation of Landmark against the participants in the documentary and against organisations hosting the documentary. The documentary is also notable because of the cases brought against landmark, but also because it was a national broadcast. It is mentioned in enough sources to demonstrate notability - that it was overshadowed by the subsequent court cases is a non-issue, since it is already demonstrably notable enough for an article without mentioning the legal cases, which only add to the notability of the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambelo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per excellent nom's arguments (and merge any useful content to Landmark Worldwide) where it belongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom's exceedingly thorough analysis. This is a part of a series of articles related to Landmark, all of which need sourcing, pruning, merging, and/or deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per Randykitty. Hafspajen (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. There's a reason this article has been straight "keep" at its TWO previous AFDs: It's a notable documentary. Landmark should not be rewarded for its litigious nature, as it currently is being rewarded at the main Landmark article, as well as related articles, in which almost anything of a remotely critical nature is removed. Now whole articles are being nominated for deletion. This is similar to what Scientology and Scientology-related articles went through, though on a smaller scale. LHM 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - That the creator of the article has been banned from editing NRM-related articles is not an issue here. We are looking at the facts: is this a neutral article about a notable documentary? Yes. There are secondary sources in the form of news articles, governmental sources, and writings that discuss the documentary directly, and other sources that discuss the documentary in terms of the response to the documentary: namely the litigation launched by Landmark against participants of the show and websites hosting the video, as well as the case opened by the EFF against Landmark. Close to 46 relevant and reliable secondary sources. This is probably more secondary sources than on any other article on any other nationally and internationally-diffused documentary on Misplaced Pages. Zambelo; talk 07:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The two previous AfDs were years ago. Since then, things have evolved here and we have become a bit more stringent with adhering to notability criteria. None of the current sources provides evidence of sufficient notability, no matter how often you and LHM state triumphantly that the article clearly is notable. The documentary exists, it was on TV so presumably some people watched it. That's all. --Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  The notability policy is no different now than then. What's different is that there are now a group of editors determined to see articles containing information critical of Landmark deleted. That's it. LHM 13:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• And their bribes are tax free! More seriously, however, please have a look at WP:AGF, thanks very much for the effort. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Good faith is a little hard to muster when you look at the articles that have been tagged for deletion and all the critical information that has been deleted by editors who have ben pushing for the deletion of this article. You'd have to be blind to not see the connection. Zambelo; talk 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Who switched of the light here? Darn, have to interrupt this fascinating conversation as I just ran into a wall. Where's my white stick?!? --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you may find that the stick may be in that other place without any light. Hope your head is alright. Zambelo; talk 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the references? Zambelo; talk 08:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This is not an extraordinarily famous documentary, but on top of the DMCA/EFF controversy there are short pieces about it in Le Point and Le Parisien , and longer one in L'Humanité that I could find on-line. The Belgian Le Soir also covered it . The French-speaking press isn't great at having web archives, so I think it's fair to presume that more coverage probably exist at the time (which was about 10 years ago.) I'm not sure what other hats Karin Badt wears (besides "Associate Professor of Cinema and Theater in Paris" -- at Paris 8 University as it turns out ) but she has a long piece in Huffington Post , which mixes coverage of the documentary with a bit of her own investigation/follow-up of sorts. JMP EAX (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • JMP, I'm about to check these links out, but let me thank you already for doing what none of these other "keep"ers were able to do: present actual evidence. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

    The person nominating the article is responsible for making the case for deletion, and for doing what JMP has done before even nominating the article, if I read deletion policy correctly. LHM 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mind your AGF. I wasn't able to find these articles, nor, apparently, were any of the defenders--and that's the more grievous bit here. I note that not a single one of the keepers has offered a reliable secondary source that discusses the topic and is not a TV preview. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  Please save your lectures. The editors recommending "keep" determined that the article was notable from the evidence they had at hand. JMP went even further, finding additional sources that further established notability. The onus is on the nominator, not the editors recommending "keep." LHM 02:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• There were already plenty of references demonstrating notability Drmies, but regardless - now that you've finally come to the same conclusion as the rest of us, and all the references, perhaps you would like to change your vote? Zambelo; talk 11:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Eh? Please point me to where ALT Drmies agrees with you. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• "I wasn't able to find these articles, nor, apparently, were any of the defenders--and that's the more grievous bit here. I note that not a single one of the keepers has offered a reliable secondary source that discusses the topic and is not a TV preview.

Since plenty of secondary sources not of the TV-preview variety have since been provided, there you go. Unless of course, you are now just arguing for the sake of argument. ˜˜˜˜

• • OK. While I appreciate the effort, these are the typical preview reports that the press publishes after a reviewer has seen the program (or a preview), and they are published for just about every program that's not another installment of Big Brother--or, in this case, Le Loft. But perhaps Randykitty, who has been said to have watched some French TV in his time, can shed more light on this matter, if his light hasn't been turned off permanently. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've seen the light! It came on this morning, phew, I was scared for a moment. I had a look at these links and like Drmies and (below) Hoary say, these are just the announcements that can be expected if a documentary promises revelations of scandal. I would be more impressed if there had been coverage after the documentary had been aired. This is not in-depth, it just regurgitates what the TV channel or documentary makers themselves have told the media (i.e., this is akin to a press release). --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure which references you're looking at, but there are plenty that cover the documentary after it was aired... try looking at the references in the Response and commentary section. Are you sure the light is all on there? Zambelo; talk 09:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Info and comments. We read at the start: "This has been to AfD twice already". As I see no links, here are links: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (2006), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (2nd nomination) (2007). ¶ This article is painfully verbose: he said this, and then he was asked this, and so he said this, et cetera. Even if the program is as noteworthy as it might possibly be, I don't see why the write-up shouldn't be cut by two thirds or more. ¶ I see little evidence that the TV program has been discussed. I do see discussion of the availability of the material within it, and of the program as a whole. This seems similar to the Tom-Cruise-enthusing-about-Scientology-to-Scientologists video, which is discussed, I think adequately, within one fifth or thereabouts of Tom Cruise#Scientology. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The documentary was discussed in several secondary sources later added to the article - in the form of newspaper articles and others. le Parisien, Huffington Post, Lepoint.fr, Dialogue Ireland, Telerama, RomaniaLibera.ro. The documentary was also discussed by multiple secondary sources in relation to the legal issues relating to the EFF and Landmark's cease and desist filings. Finally, it is also referenced in published works, such as Susan Palmer's book. It is a little verbose though, yes - but since it was nominated for deletion, the number of reliable secondary sources has more than tripled. I don't think it should be cut by two thirds,it currently contains an introduction, a summary of the interviews conducted, a section on the aftermath, and a section on the legal fights, all of which are important to the article. It can be slimmed down slightly, certainly. Zambelo; talk 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we're going around in circles. Still: It was announced on websites of note (as documentaries promising revelations often/usually are). And after it was shown it was mentioned on websites, etc. Dialogue Ireland is not a negligible website but it also looks iffy. And what other article about a single TV program translates/quotes sequences of utterances made by multiple people interviewed for/in the program? -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles such as Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, for example, summarise the documentary quite extensively - and this is what this article is doing through a few extracts from the held interviews. Zambelo; talk 04:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You realize that the Enron article is one-fourth the size of the article under discussion here - and that for a documentary that won several international awards and was nominated for an Academy Award, right? --Tgeairn (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the size, we can work on that - instead of deleting the article. But size has nothing to do with exposure. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambelo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Nominator makes a thorough case, with which I concur. No in-depth commentary on this, or genuine notability. Misplaced Pages is not well served by hit pieces like this, regardless of the merits or otherwise of their target. Merge any worthwhile content to Landmark Worldwide. Begoon  18:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect to Landmark Worldwide. The delete nomination is moderately but not completely convincing. Without concerning myself with the nature of the article in the past, or the motivation of past editors, I don't see the article in its recent or current state as a "hit piece". I do see it as a very wordy affair about a TV program of minor notability. Yet there seems to be a real effort to provide sources for what the article says. The article on Landmark may have a paragraph or two about the program; in order to help create this, the earlier versions of the article "Voyage au pays..." should remain available via https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Voyage_au_pays_des_nouveaux_gourous&redirect=no . -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Having recently started editing the main Landmark article, I'd be willing to bet that many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article. LHM 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• You're too quick to judge, Lithistman. The lawsuits give more than enough warranty for a paragraph or to. Oh! What Randykitty says.

  But I take offense at the tone of your comment: you strongly suggest that "those" editors will resist because the documentary is critical of Landmark. If you suggest one more time that I am not editing neutrally because somehow or other I support what Landmark is doing, I will post it on ANI as a personal attack. You don't know me--you don't know shit about me--and you have no right to make such claims. First of all, because AGF et cetera, and second, because I happen to detest any cult/brainwashing organization/pay-for-play "selfhelp" group. This is the kind of incivility that sometimes makes editing here akin to wading through shit. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Sounds like an acceptable solution, as the sources verify enough to support a paragraph in another article, circumventing the problem of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates