[ QUOTE ]
Internet phenomena should certainly be documented in Wikipedia. The question of whether Zeitgeist is credible has no more relevance than the question of whether
William Hung (or even
Britney Spears) can sing.
[/ QUOTE ]
The criteria for notability, for better or worse, is a mention in the press, books, airing on television, etc. They do this to set some guidelines to keep the mountains of random, unnoteworthy internet crap and bios of random people from clogging the encyclopedia.
All of the phenomena you listed meet the notability criteria, having been reported in the media. They are also far more famous on the internet, to the point of becoming household names.
Anyway, the point I'm making is that this isn't some conspiracy, it's standard wikipedia policy that has nothing to do with this movie. I agree the stupidity of the movie is irrelevant to its inclusion.
BTW, it's kind of dismaying to see atheists take this [censored] seriously. If you don't care about the fact that the author's main assertions have no basis in fact and are unsourced, then you're no better than some brain dead fundamentalist. The veracity of his theory depends entirely on the credibility of the factual claims he's making. You can't just take the conclusions and say "yeah, that fits with my ideology, who cares if the main details are off".