Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

This was kept in a deletion discussion three years ago based on the existence of one sentence in one publication, and two negative paragraphs in Anthropology Today. This amount of sourcing simply does not meet our basic notability guidelines for a short film, and, tellingly, nothing new has come about in the three years since the initial discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. More sources speak toward this film other than the one the nom has chosen to dismiss. IF the the "only" independent reliable source speaking toward this film were the peer-reviewed academic journal Anthropology Today, we'd have concerns toward the film meeting WP:GNG and, as it is not a widely distributed theatrical release, most media have ignored it... usually because its topic is seen as not toeing their political line. Yet it has been well received, and even where it has been critiqued by "outside" journals (such as AT) they've still taken notice of it. Our notability guideline isn't based on it being praised or being true... but is in fact based on a film being discussed, whether positively or negatively. Perception by any that the film's content might be absolute nonsense is not a criteria that we use, and no more pertinent to a film article being kept or deleted than is the make-believe science of Star Wars or the magic of Harry Potter.   In application of applicable criteria and even in recognition that documentary films rarely receive the coverage of mainstream blockbusters, this one does meet WP:NF through WP:GNG. Per WP:NRVE and WP:ATD, article and project will benefit from it remaining and being addressed over time and through regular editing using the many available sources even if some are in French (see WP:NONENG).  That it has not been improved since its last keep, is a reason to do so through understanding of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP... but not to  delete through disagreeing with one of the article's many sources. We may also consider WP:NTEMP. We do not expect ANY topic to remain forever in the headlines. Wikipedia does not benefit from WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So where are the specific sources? I don't see much in the way of reliable, non trivial sources about the subject, do you have specific sources in mind that do so? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is the work of a moment to find more detailed sources such as this book. The topic therefore passes our notability guideline easily. Warden (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a self-published book, and thus does not add to its notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems well-written enough for our purpose. But I browse a bit more and find another extensive account of the topic which we don't yet have in the article.  Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is more like what we need, yes. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And how about THIS additional extensive review?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this article actually has credible sources to back up this articles notability.Dwanyewest (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are they? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments presented by MQS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there are problems with the article why weren't they addressed first in the talk page, before bypassing fellow editors and coming here? Since the topic is clearly the subject of scholarly work, there should be no reason to reject it on WP, solely because an editor has some personal conflict with the content. Kbrose (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems on the article have to do with sources, not with "personal conflict with the content." Even now, we have a grand total of one substantial piece on the movie, and even then, it could be argued that the article is more about the filmmaker.  I don't see the need for "multiple" nontrivial sources being addressed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * More than "one" for those who look. Aside from my wishing to cite the opinion of Congressman Dennis Kucinich (asking now over at WP:RSN, I am very pleased to have found a lengthy archived film review from The Epoch Times.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Easily meets guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Shrunk and struck, as these questions have been moved elsewhere,  Note:  We all need to keep a watch on the article, as the nominator is taking his issues to it rather than to discussion. I just returned sourced material and the reliable sources used as references, that he removed due to feeling they were inappropriate. In my edit summary I suggested he take his concerns to WP:RSN.  	 Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: As he appears to contend that two uses of an opinion piece sources were un-reliable for sourcing opinions in the context in which they were being used, he removed them again but at least this time he used some wax examples on the article's talk page. As reliability depends on several factors, and as  we certainly expect to find opinions ON opinion websites, I will not involve myself in an edit war, but will myself take it WP:RSN.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Inre: WP:RSN: I cannot quite tell if the nominator has issue with the source publishing it or the specific author whose written opinion was being quoted. The discussion has just been opened HERE. All are welcome. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I have invited the nominator to THAT discussion to explain how Congressman Dennis Kucinich's authored public opinion is somehow invalid simply because of where he chose to publicly offer it. Cheers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And, under WP:RSOPINION this should be acceptable as an alternate to what was removed:
 * In his authored article about the bailout as published in OpEdNews, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduces his article by encouraging readers to watch Paul Grignon's Money as Debt and opining that the film was "a useful, though by no means definitive, introduction to the topic of debt and the monetary system." [1]
 * [1] ^ Dennis Kucinich, The Bailout and What's Next, October 1, 2008.OpEdNews. Retrieved August 25, 2013.
 * Suitable folks?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG. Yworo (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2013 (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.