Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Needs to at least have some reliable sources to prove notability; otherwise it fails WP:CORP, WP:V, etc. As DGG mentioned, it isn't technically a speedy since there is assertion of notability, though given the barren state of sources I'll delete for now. If they pop up in the future, feel free to recreate the article. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist Project

Zeitgeist Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Hmmm... what to say about this one? According to its website the Zeitgeist Project is "a bold and historic initiative that seeks to bring together under one roof a society’s most influential leaders, thinkers, and artists not only to celebrate the Zeitgeist but also to address viral ideologies." Apparently it will be led by a panel of "royalty, heads of state, UN representatives, international business leaders and Nobel Laureates." Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are. And given its crucial importance, it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation. And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across on Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself (see the revision histories of Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist the Movie - the latter particularly inappropriate as the website declares loudly that it has nothing to do with the movie). I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Fractionally more substance than a typical MADEUP article but nowhere near enough to justify inclusion. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - no evidence of notability, only source is their own website. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See Talk:Zeitgeist Project for the article author's response to this. I'm not convinced; I concur with Iain99 and recommend deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. It's not made up but it easily fails the notability guideline. PeterSymonds | talk 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • RELY In response to the request for deletion of "Zeitgeist Project":

1. The reason sited for deletion is: "non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet Speedy concern: non-notable organisation. A glance at their website will show that it does not exist yet." THIS IS FALSE. The site does exist (www.zeitgeistproject.org)

2. It is claimed: "it seems strange that Google finds only 82 hits for the phrase "Zeitgeist Project", few or none of which appear to relate to this organisation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeitgeist_Project). THIS IS CORRECT, but this is only because the Zeitgeist Project only went live a few days ago. Therefore, the above reason for deletion is not justifiable.

3. It is claimed: "Oddly though, for such a lofty organisation, its website offers no information whatsoever about who is behind the project, or who these world leaders and Nobel Laureates are." As stated on the Zeitgeist Project website, the project is ONLY in its infancy stages. The website NO where claims that the advisory board exists. The website's intend "is" to explain the vision and scope of what the Zeitgeist Project CAN be.

4. It is claimed: "And it's odder still that an organisation of global importance seems to use linkspamming across Wikipedia as its main method of publicising itself." To use the word "across" is hyperbolic. The author of this criticism only offers two examples one of which is the article "Zeitgeist". Since the Zeitgeist Project directly pertains to the Zeitgeist then how is adding an external and internal link to the "Zeitgeist" Wikipedia article a form of "linkspamming"?I wonder if the author of this criticism is the same author of the Zeitgeist article entry.

5. It is claimed: "I can only conclude that this is one of three things: a shadowy, secretive and therefore unverifiable organisation; something just invented by a person whose ambitions are far greater than his connections; or an outright fabrication. Whichever of the three it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia." None of these claims have any substance, in fact these remarks border on being incendiary. This person's entire case for deletion is a non sequitur. For example, to claim that Zeitgeist Project is an "ambitious" project and THEREFORE should be deleted is simply nonsensical and should not even require a response. However, a response is required or the Zeitgeist Project entry will be deleted. Second, there is nothing "shadowy" and/or "secretive" about the Zeitgeist Project. Did the author of this criticism actually read what the Zeitgeist Project hopes to accomplish? What it is promoting is anything but "shadowy" - ambitious yes, but surely NOT secretive. Finally, what is meant by "outright fabrication"? Clearly this is another example of a type of ignoratio elenchi fallacy. --Charles vanier (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as an hypothetical organisation with no real evidence of even existence, but I do nto see how it is really fits the dfefinition of speedy, since it does assert importance.DGG (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear DGG, thank you for your remarks. You are correct the criticism against the Zeitgeist Project does not fall under the definition of "speedy". Please define as to what constitutes a "hypothetical organization" and what would constitute, in your own words, "real evidence"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles vanier (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Charles, I suggest you read our policies and guidelines on notability, verifiability, reliable sources and speculation. If, as you say, this is a nascent organisation with no coverage in reliable sources (such as newspapers) then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia yet. Being ambitious is good, but at the moment there is no way for the rest of us to tell whether your ability to carry the project through matches your ambitions, and therefore whether anything will come of it. As such an article at this time would be premature. If you do manage to recruit world leaders and Nobel laureates to your group though, you will get plenty of coverage and an article would be guaranteed. Until then though, the mere fact that you desire to recruit them is not by itself enough. Sorry for suggesting the organisation was a fabrication but - here's some friendly advice - by making so many claims about how important the Zeitgeist Project is going to be and providing so little support for them (even contact details are missing), your site does look like some of the hoax websites I've seen. We get a lot of them here. As for the linking, see Wikipedia:External links; Wikipedia articles are not places to collect any and all links with a tangential relevance to the subject of the article. The correct place for a link to zeitgeistproject would be the organisation's article itself - if it survives this AfD. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Iain99, thank you for your insightful remarks. As I am new to Wikipedia I am in the process of learning all the various "rules." I have read carefully the "Notability" article [1], however, I am not claiming the "notability criterion" as a means of authenticity. You correctly mention that there is "no way" of knowing "whether anything will come of it (Zeitgeist Project)". You are correct. As in most things in life there are no certainties. I will do everything in my power to make this vision a reality. If you recognize the value of appropriating "Unity in diversity for the purpose of cultivating peace" then I humbly submit this article on the Zeitgeist Project as a MEANS of moving the project along. As you are well aware Wikipedia is a powerful tool of communication, hence my reason in submitting the "Zeitgeist Project" article. Second, "contact details are (not) missing" (please see [2]). To your credit, the Contact link may have been dead when you checked. I must confess, I do not understand when you say that "your site does look like some of the hoax website." I can assure you it is not. Please read my bio [3]

--Charles vanier (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable based on author's description here. Klausness (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per obvious COI issue as Charles vanier claims to be the founder of said group! Also, despite its grand ideas, the group doesn't meet them yet. Perhaps one day, if it can ever achieve such a status it might be worthy of an article, but as the group just went live a few days ago (and did so without heads of state/nobel laureates) then it is currently not notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep.

- What the common denominator amongst those who are requesting deletion is the consistent lack of sustained argument.

- Notice that no one actually quotes from Wikipedia deletion policy. This is very telling. For example, Balloonman states that his ‘reason’ for deletion is COI. A cursory reading of Wikipedia’s official policy about deletion clearly does NOT state that COI is one of its criteria.

- Given the lack of cogent arguments, it is also suspect why people even “feel” compelled to submit a request for deletion, especially given the fact that they make vague and incorrect assertions about Wikipedia’s official policy.

- In other words, it makes sense to submit a request for deletion when there is justifiable warrant after explicitly citing from Wikipedia’s official policy pertaining to causes for deletion. --Charles vanier (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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.