Deletion of The Zeitgeist Movement

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP||WP:ONEEVENT)

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:RS)

Comment: What I believe the chaps above mean is that WP is neither #NEWS|a news repository nor SOAPBOX|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTSOAPBOX||WP:V||WP:GNG||WP:RS)