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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Only sources seem to be bloggers and some idiot with spray paint at Oklahoma State University. The source from Stillwater Newspress doesn't seem to even know (or care) what the Zeitgeist movement is. Delete--Phirazo (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : absoulte drivel. Paul75 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Daily O'Collegian article is a bit more coherent. The vandalism has gotten the movement some press coverage, although probably not the type of coverage it wanted to receive. Perhaps all the people googling Zeitgeist Movement after seeing the vandalism make the movement notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no meaningful content whatsoever. JuJube (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A handful of area papers covering a graffiti incident does not make this movement notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. umm Paul75, your comment is considered spam. ths article does need more info in it, there is a lot of objective info on their site that could be summarized in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.40.33 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC) — 79.112.40.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Again I see these quick delete requests, even if the article hasn't existed for more than a few hours, being stub'd AND talkpage include information about more sources are coming. Reading deletion arguments of Paul75, JuJube, Eastmain & Someguy1221 makes me wonder what's going on. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have not read, at the very least, what Eastmain wrote. Xe is pointing to some sources, for discussion. Xe is doing the very thing that you promised to do on the talk page, but actually haven't done as yet. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What I believe the chaps above mean is that WP is neither a news repository nor somewhere to start your revolution. If it could be verified that this is in fact a notable movement, using reliable, third-party, published sources, then we should absolutely have an article about it. Until then, removal is the best option. onebravemonkey 10:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having trawled through another Google search on this, it does look to have pervaded the Intertron a fair bit. However, the comments seem to be largely blog-based which won't stand up on their own. This needs to hit mainstream media or elicit more high-profile comment before it comes close to WP:RS. onebravemonkey 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not for promoting original ideas. There's no evidence of this having any significant coverage or even enough to accurately explain what it is let alone why it is notable. --neon white talk 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How does being stubbed have anything to do with this discussion? I don't see this article's sources or potential therefor as being sufficient to pass the notability test. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A made-up movement with vague aims does not become notable merely by motivating a lone vandal. This is the extent of the reliable sourced coverage. Question: is the spelling Zeitgeist (correct in other contexts) or Zeigeist (used by the only real source)? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think your "lone vandal" theory stands up to the varient spellings and handwritings. If future generations actually discuss this, though, I'll eat my shoes. The point should be that the article is about the supposed movement, but the coverage is about a one-time, locally, briefly notable event. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely trivial. lack of sources with anything to say --T-rex 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is really nothing redeeming about the article. If this "movement" is really notable, it should eventually get significant coverage from some reliable news sources, but until that day, it doesn't belong on WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezgamer (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or should I say "Deleet"). From the school newspaper, we know they can't spell "Zeitgeist" (making their name a poor choice). Our article informs us they are a "thret" to Christianity (cue billions of Christians shaking in their boots). Yes, Google kicks up five reliable-ish sources: three from October 10, two from October 13, all reporting the vandalism. If anyone feels those sources are enough, the article should be moved to Zeigeist Movement vandalism incident (with a redirect from "Zeitgeist..."). I don't feel the incident is anything beyond a minor blip on the local news radar. The "movement" seems to be something thought up while getting high after Phil. 101. If the movement is later cited as a cause for dropping religiosity, then we'll have something. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - because I'm part of the conspiracy. In all seriousness, no reliable sources to establish notability of this "movement".--Boffob (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Boffob. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It is not notable per guide (as of now). I googled it to come to this conclusion. Widefox (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I get your points. It's maybe a bit early to create this article. I created it because I found out that Z-day (Google: Z-day Zeitgeist - 23700 matches) was a happening at many universities over the globe 2007 and that there are a lot of planning going on for 2008 Z-day - which is the basic's of a movement. AND as I checked the charactaristics of existing Movement articles - I got the impression that it would qualify for existance after a little help from other Wikipedians. --Roberth Edberg (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion is not that something exists, it's that it has been 'noted' by relaible second party sources, otherwie the article will consist of nothing but speculation and original research. --neon white talk 12:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment "Z-day" does seem to be on a lot of blogs and such (which doesn't confer notability), but Z-day springs from the movie that the movement seems to have taken its name from. Much like the notability of Christmas has nothing to do with whether or not the Christian Bowling League is notable, "Z-day" showing up in, say, the New York Times would not in any way make "The Zeitgeist Movement" notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's coverage will considerably increase, mark my words. Just give it time. 124.180.117.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - If/when that happens, it might merit an article. At present, it does not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your words have been duly marked You may want to note, 124.180.117.165, that Zeitgeist, the Movie was deleted, and then undeleted after it had received siginificant coverage in reliable second party sources. --Phirazo (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (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.