Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Money as Debt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources were provided after being tagged since December 2009, until the article was prodded, when three references were at last added. Of these one is a link to YouTube, as a source for a statement that the film has been viewed there a lot of times: this is not substantial coverage in a reliable source. The second reference is a link to a page which makes the film available for viewing, and gives a number of brief quotations from various people who tell us that the film is wonderful. The site on which that page appears is a site which avowedly exists for promotion of the opinions of the man who runs the site. For example, the site says "We are not a news desk - our aim is to uncover the longstanding treason committed by American administrations against their own people and against all the peoples of the world. We try to show how this 'pattern of treason' is heading towards a new World War for the benefit of a few..." and again "read the following pages and shake your head in wonderment at the caring and grateful government that continues to hide behind falsification of so called intelligence". I am not convinced that this is a reliable source, but even if we accept it as such, a list of brief quotations is not "substantial coverage". The third reference is to a site which invites us to subscribe to it "NOT ONLY TO RECIEVE THE DAILY NEWS DIGEST OF ALTERNATIVE NEWS AND OPINION BUT TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR NAVIGATING UNPRECEDENTED TRANSITIONS RELATED TO THE COLLAPSE OF EMPIRE". It is a personal website, run by a woman called Carolyn Baker, and the reference is to a page on the site where she tells us how much she likes the film. I am not convinced that this can be regarded as a reliable source, and even if it is it only tells us that one person liked the film. When this article was deleted at its previous AfD the closing admin commented "There is an apparent lack of substantial, reliable coverage from which to build a proper article." The same seems equally true now. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP
 * Firstly I find it almost offensive to the Wikipedia community and integrity for someone to post such a request ONE DAY after the article has been augmented with the previous request and on the SAME DAY the request has been made. Regarding notability, the first film has been viewed by more than half a Million people on youtube alone, showed at festivals, and has been reviewed by dozens of film critics and papers, including the academic research. so I find this claim ludicrous and almost political. (and sad really.. cause if you noticed we're  currently in a time of global economic turmoil, that is possible only because some try to perpetrated their right for ignorance..)
 * Furthermore, the reviews in the official site are easily googable to find some of the original third party sources. Again, as has been shown and quoted previously.
 * Moreover, the particular JasonBWatson ideological claims from his own motivation contrasting one of the authors is completely Irrelevant. besides, why dig up stuff from those places and even bring it as an argument? Wikipedia is all about a neutral point of view. I mean, maybe she's gay too or something.. this is completely irrelevant. (btw, had you actually watched it, you would've noticed it has nothing to do with hating or loving the usa..it talks about money).-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, previously deleted on two occasions, was proposed and declined speedy, and PROD was removed then AfD notice removed by Diza, all with edit summaries "The issue has been answered, no addiitonal reply have been made. No need for deletion. stop these edit wars and go do something productinve." and "stupid slaves". Notability has not been established, and if this article is deleted (for the third time) could we pour some SALT on this. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only see one previous AFD above. Can you link me to the other previous deletion discussion? Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The deletion log shows that Money as Debt has been deleted twice, but only once was the article deleted: the other time it was just a redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * well, if people have done something destructive in the past, then it's probably a great reason to redo it in the future. I just love the arguments here:)-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "if people have done something destructive in the past, then it's probably a great reason to redo it in the future." I have no idea what you are talking about, I suggest you stick to making policy arguments. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as documentary films rarely receive the coverage of mainstream blockbusters, and yet this one meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD, article will benefit from proper cleanup and expansion per available sources. No need to worry about removable bad cites if good ones are at hand... even if many are in French.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per MQS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A few answers to the points Diza (who signs "Procrastinating") has raised.
 * 1) I am sorry that Diza finds the nomination "I find it almost offensive to the Wikipedia community", but I don't understand why. What was almost offensive appears to be that I did not wait longer before nominating. I am not sure why this might be offensive.
 * 2) Notability, as defined in Wikipedia's guidelines, depends on substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, not on such matters as the number of people who have watched the film, on YouTube or elsewhere.
 * 3) Diza refers to "the academic research". Is there a reference to evidence for this?
 * 4) Diza says "I find this claim ludicrous and almost political". Presumably, in the context, "this claim" means the suggestion of non-notability. I suppose that Diza is intending this as a suggestion that my nomination was politically motivated, because of opposition to the views expressed in the film. I wonder whether Diza has any evidence for this assumption of bad faith. The reasons given are entirely to do with the quality an quantity of the sources supplied. I am not aware of anything I have ever written on Wikipedia which would give any indication of my political views, so I do not know how Diza infers what my views are, unless it is just an assumption that anyone suggesting deletion must be doing it for political reasons. However, for the first time ever I shall now express a political opinion in Wikipedia. I actually support the stance of the film. However, I believe that Wikipedia should be an impartial encyclopedia, and that inclusion or exclusion of articles should be based on whether there are good sources indicating notability, not on whether I or anyone else supports or opposes the points of view expressed by subjects of articles.
 * 5) Diza says "Moreover, the particular JasonBWatson ideological claims from his own motivation contrasting one of the authors is completely Irrelevant. besides, why dig up stuff from those places and even bring it as an argument?" Unfortunately this is not very coherent, and I am not entirely sure what is intended. However, I guess that what it is intended to convey is that my referring to the political stance of the web sites given as references is because I oppose those views. In fact my purpose, as I mistakenly thought I had made clear, was to show that the sites in question exist to vigorously promote particular views, which contributes to my not regarding them as reliable sources. In fact this is not really the most central point: a personal web site is not a reliable source whether or not it plugs a particular political point of view.
 * 6) Diza says "had you actually watched it, you would've noticed it has nothing to do with hating or loving the usa". I have re-read the whole of the above discussion very carefully, and I am a loss to see anything there which suggests that it does have anything to do with hating or loving the USA. Even the quotes from the web sites cited only suggest a disapproval of the government of the USA, and what is more there is no suggestion that I can see that this view is expressed in the film. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per references provided by Michael, nominator is welcome to remove the references he finds unnotable and discuss them on talk. Okip (formerly Ikip) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search shows plenty of major news sources mentioning this documentary, and even recommending people go and watch it to understand the financial situation.   D r e a m Focus  03:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources now provided are not brilliant, but I think they establish enough notability for the article to be kept. Thanks to the people who have taken a positive attitude in this discussion, and produced evidence of notability where there was originally none. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope we can focus on extending this article.-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 19:02, 15 February 2010 (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.