Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zeitgeist Movement (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 22:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

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

Article was deleted back in 2008, on the basis of no notability and no reliable sources. There's still barely anything present establishing proper notability. Sloane (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep and edit The earlier deletion should not prejudice matters--another admin, in declining a G4 speedy as a re-creation, said " is significantly longer and has more sources now", a judgment I agree with. I'm not sure being longer is beneficial, though, it is a little overextended in comparison with the available material. I consider the March 16, 2009 NYTimes article on the movement "They’ve Seen the Future and Dislike the Present" [1] a sufficient reference to establish notability DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You consider a single newspaper article sufficient?--Sloane (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit There is a bit of a self-promoting tone here, but the subject matter shouldn't be up for debate for removal. The movement has gained enough following and interest to merit notability. The Zeitgeist Movement's Peter Joseph just released a documentary called "Moving Forward", which has just about a quarter of a million views on "YouTube" alone. I could probably consider hundreds of subjects and items off-hand that hold far less notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.30.105 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT story usually establishes notability here. A good WP article would be useful to people interested in learning more about this movement. On the other hand the contributors to the article should be given a lecture about writing in a neutral tone so that the impression of self-promotion is not given. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In the past few years it has gain notability. Maybe some parts of the article need neutralization, but the movement itself i think has the notability needed to have an article here. Gonchibolso12 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The main thing that seems to get brought up here is the notability of the topic. Just on the bases that I've known about it for some time now, and most people I've come across know about it as well, I'd give it a pass on that. Zeitgeist Movement returns just under 2 million results on Google. I'd say that's pretty notable. To put that in perspective, Buck Bumble returns about 64,000, why isn't anyone questioning that topic's notability? Because nobody gives a fuck about Buck Bumble. This seems to be more of an issue about personal disagreement rather than objective qualification. --Renegade78 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google hits are meaningless when establishing notability. We need multiple, reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Here's a reputable, peer reviewed Australian journal article written by a psychotherapist with a PhD [2] [3]. --Renegade78 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems have have at least a bare minimum of notability, but it would be nice to see a few more sources on notability. Also currently up on AFD that people here may be interested in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Addendum (3rd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist: Moving Forward -- Monty845 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A definite keep. I don't think the notoriety of the Zeitgeist Movement is in question, no matter what one's personal feelings about it are. There are 500,000 individual members of the movement. (In comparison, the British Labour Party has less than 200,000). It returns over 500,000 results on Google (when the term is specifically defined). And there are numerous mentions of it across various media. The argument that it has no notoriety seems to me patently false, and smacks of people peddling an agenda. The overall quality of the entry itself might well be questioned, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.43.61 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of note, all but three of the citations in the article are primary sources. I'm not convinced this passes Notability for a stand-alone article, but it's enough to be included in a related article (most likely Zeitgeist: The Movie). I'd lean towards Merge to that article, with substantial trimming. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Just as those in 2008 you have an agenda against tzm, look at the above comment, never ever would tzm merge with Z1, its unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.151.158 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A solid keep. Source and notability is united with its references to relevant articles and official web pages about the movement. That's simply the fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 528Hz (talk • contribs) 4:49, March 8, 2011
Merge, lacks the level of third party coverage necessary for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Zeitgeist Movement' is in some senses a tautology. Anarchangel (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit, while all these guys are saying is "communism + big brother x 10 = GREAT IDEA" it is a good article to keep so people can learn more without needing to read the official site, which is blatantly sugar-coating itself and saying it's the best choice. A wikipedia article that is NPOV would help people get their own personal POV. Jax-Kenobi (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, There seems to be a lot of edit wars for a topic that is so un-notable, or is it notable? I get confused. I think this article is being attacked and can't be improved easily under such conditions. Fix that problem first. It only makes sense when you think about it.-- (Gharr (talk) 12:56, 11 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.