Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (3rd 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Money as Debt

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Money as Debt
• Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th nomination)

Money as Debt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:WEB. (Edit: WP:NF even less.) No reliable sources proving notability were added since previous deletion discussion. Chrisahn (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, wrong criteria, it's a documentary film which happens to also be available to watch on the Internet. Still sourced with sources that passed the last AfD. Yworo (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If you want to keep the article, you should argue for WP:WEB. The requirements for WP:NF are even higher, and the film will never meet them. I edited the AfD intro accordingly. The last AfD ended in a WP:Non-admin closure simply because it was withdrawn by the editor who started it. Chrisahn (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note, I've added an additional reference, an article in Anthropology Today dedicated several long paragraphs to analyzing the film's strengths and weaknesses. It's also mentioned in an issue of Radical Teacher, but I don't have access to the full article so don't know in what depth, so I've added the citation to the further reading section. Yworo (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The Anthropology Today reference has been mentioned and rejected in the first discussion (which decided to delete the article).Chrisahn (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Radical Teacher is WP:NOTRELIABLE Chrisahn (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Why would you say that? It's published by the University of Illinois and has an editorial board. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... I don't really know Radical Teacher, but AFAICT many of its views are extremist. It's not exactly published by the University of Illinois, but by the University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Center for Critical Education. Chrisahn (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I found the full text of the Radical Teacher article - it mentions the film in one sentence. Chrisahn (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Note The main problem with the article is this: Since the film is based on a factually incorrect description of how money is 'created' (on his website, the author actually admits as much), Wikipedia should have a nice, thorough 'Criticism' section - but we can't, because no reliable source bothers to go near this nonsense. There simply aren't enough sources for a good article, because the thing isn't notable. Chrisahn (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability, in that what we offer here, even if a worldwide hoax such as Piltdown man, has been written about in reliable source... whether treated negatively or positively. We do not judge the flat earth as a deletable article simply becuse it is a provably incorrect concept. We judge it notable because it has been written about and discussed by others... just as has this topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Piltdown man and flat earth are nice examples. Both articles clearly say that these concepts are wrong. Money as Debt also is wrong, but hardly any reliable source cares enough to say so. I'd rather have no article at all than an article that can't clearly express what nonsense the film is. Wikipedia should not condone crap simply because it is too obscure to be rebutted by reliable sources. Can you see why I'm getting so worked up about this? Chrisahn (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are examples of viewpoints once held as sacrosanct, even if later disproved (and that disproving took years), that were and are covered in reliable sources. Since you disgree with the film's topic, you are certainly welcome to add something for balance in a "Reception" section to show that the film was received negatively by other RS who disagreed with the film's topic. But you really need to remember, please, the article is not about money creation, it is about a FILM. The film article need not explain the explain the theory behind the theory espoused by the film. The film article need not itself prove or disprove the film topic. The film article, no matter the film subject, need only show the film itself receiving coverage... whther for good or bad. We are not debating truth... only verifiabilty of the film existing and itself being the recipient of coverage... like the film or not... disagree with the film or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial reliable published works and excludes trivial coverage, such as ... a brief summary of the nature of the content. Two 'sources' are given: One is an article in Anthropology Today (the journal doesn't have a WP entry, but probably is WP:RELIABLE) which mentions the film in two (very critical) paragraphs. The other is a blog post by Carolyn Baker (a nut job and conspiracy theorist), which was also published by the Atlantic Free Press (which is probably WP:NOTRELIABLE and only marginally better than a blog: No, we can't pay - this is an Open Source Web 2.0 media project).Chrisahn (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • • Note: The above editor is the nominator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Factual incorrectness of media is not a deletion argument. Otherwise we wouldn't have Worlds in Collision and many other books presented as factual which are actually simply speculation. You neglect to mention that in the second AfD the sources were deemed to be sufficient. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Factual incorrectness wasn't my point. I edited my previous comment, I hope it's clearer now.Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • JamesBWatson withdrew his AfD with the comment The sources now provided are not brilliant, but I think they establish enough notability for the article to be kept. I disagree, obviously.Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per last consensus. As the article is about a documentary film and NOT a website, the use of WP:WEB as a criteria to delete a film article is inappropriate and inapplicable. The nominator might as well be asserting that the film also does not meet WP:CORP or WP:BOOK. However, and in application of actually applicable criteria, and even in recognition that documentary films rarely receive the coverage of mainstream blockbusters, this one does meet WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD, article will benefit from proper cleanup and expansion per available sources even if many are in French. That it has not been exceptionally improved since its last keep, is a reason to do so... not delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I chose WP:WEB because 99% of its viewers probably saw it on the Web, but anyway - the film does not meet WP:NF:

1. The film is not widely distributed
2. The film is not historically notable
3. The film has not received a major award
4. The film was not selected for preservation in an archive
5. The film is not "taught" as a subject

It also doesn't meet WP:GNG: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. As stated above, there are two alleged 'sources'. One consists of two (very critical) paragraphs in a high-quality source (Anthropology Today). The other is a blog post by a writer of very low reliability which was later published by a Website with similarly low reliability.

10 months ago you said No need to worry about removable bad cites if good ones are at hand... even if many are in French. Now you again talk about available sources. I checked that list and didn't find significant coverage in reliable sources, not even in French. Chrisahn (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, you seem to be getting a little overinvolved in this. Removing material from the article, arguing against everybody's opinion that differs from yours. Isn't it sufficient to state your arguments once? I believe that nominating the article, leaving it alone for others to improve during the AfD, and not arguing against every opponent is considered to be good form for an AfD. Yworo (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right and I'll try to cool down, but MichaelQSchmidt's claims about WP:GNG and available sources are still wrong. Looking forward to his reply. Chrisahn (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is about the film, not Grignon's website itself. It may need improvement (article will benefit from expansion and full treatment of the issues), but it should not be deleted, per former consensus and arguments above. We can improve reliability of the article's content. Saebvn (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We can improve reliability of the article's content - how? Chrisahn (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Why is User:Saebvn not allowed the guideline-supported opinion that the article might be improved over time and through regular editing? You continue to misunderstand that we are not debating the truth of the film's topic, but are instead discussing an article about a film. We do not have to address the "reliability" of this film's topic... no more than we have to address the "reliablity" of the science in Star Wars or the magic in Harry Potter. That the film has reliable sources in English and French (like them or not) and is repeatedly cited in Google Scholar (like it or not), allows it to meet WP:NF. As explained above, notability is not dependent on a film's topic, but is dependent rather on the film itself having coverage that allows it to meet the applicable notability guideline... and enough reliable sources do speak toward the film, both negatively and positively to meet notability caveats. And toward your mis-application of the "attributes that generally indicate" from WP:NF#General principles, I wish to clarify that these attributes are NOT criteria that must be met... they are simply listed as possible atributes that could encourage a diligent search for sources. No more, no less. It is in the sources that notability is found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. The reasons for nomination seem rather weak if not misguided. There appear good faith attempts to improve the article further, but lack of quality of content are not reasons to delete. Baseline notability appears evident. Kbrose (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The subject is referenced by reliable sources, and the nominator's rationale for deletion appears to be based on disagreement with the content rather than on Wikipedia policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It does seems like it.--Namaste@^? 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep The depiction of Richard III of England by Shakespeare and other authors is erroneous and false. I have hitherto seen no reason whatsoever to delete articles concerning their portrayals.----Sintermerte----

• Strong Keep' -I do not understand why this article is being nominated for the third time no. Is this information troubling some power at be / people who refuse to do the research? sure seems like it.

On a more pertinent note- The article is of good quality, referenced and notable.(I would even add, important for anyone using "money"). Also, notability exists not just in content (which is prolific all around the net and academia) but it's affiliation with a popular film (at least half a million views), and it's sequel. true, it is a critical view point. you got a positive view point film you wish to put in the "see-also" section? go ahead, let's promote a discussion.

I mean, We have a wiki article on every epsiode of the Simpsons, in this mass entertainment culture, I'm almost ashamed any non-trivial information sometimes encounters such wiki-violence.--Namaste@^? 13:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to be notable, and Namaste makes good point about the importance of WP coverage of non-fiction media. PamD (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As Anthropology Today described it, "an underground hit in activist circles". It's not a widely distributed film and most media have ignored it, very often as it's not seen as toeing their political line. Yet it has been well received amongst the faithful and even where it has been critiqued by "outside" journals (such as AT) they've still taken heed of it. Our notability guideline isn't based on it being praised, it's based on it being discussed, either positively or negatively. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

great quote, suitable for the article. At 10 For and 1 (?) against vote, what are the guidelines regarding this AfD ?--Namaste@^? 14:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still got another day to run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As there are no delete votes other than the nominator, I doubt if anyone would question a speedy closure, but I don't have any problem with this simply running its course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with speedy closes is that if the subject is at all controversial, someone almost always objects after the fact, which just makes things messy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let it run. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. After reading through the entire discussion and the nominator's rather vehement arguments and responses, and reading the article and its references, this seems notable enough. Yes, some of the references are not reliable (that Atlantic Free Press article, for instance--that's someone gushing over something they barely understand, and Cdurable is hardly acceptable as a reliable source: it's a blog/portal, and it has very, very little to say on our subject) and the reliable ones are (highly) critical. But that the film was "rapidly becoming a big underground success," to quote Sheriff Bart slightly out of context, seems clear enough. And even if the content of the film is wrong in so many ways, as is argued here and elsewhere, well, Blazing Saddles also didn't really portray the West accurately. Being wrong, even being fringe, does not make something not notable. Nominator would be well advised to leave it be, to restrain the urge to respond to every single editor, and to find other important articles to work on.

  Edit conflict with MQS and BMK: I agree, BMK, that this should simply run. Before you know it we're rehashing all of this at deletion review, and no one wants that. I think. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yup... no problem in simply letting it run its course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note Thanks everyone for are pretty reasonable discussion. The article got a lot better during this AfD. To anyone who still thinks the film is 'valuable' or 'important' - please read at least the salient parts of Money creation and Fractional-reserve banking. It's good for you. :-) It just makes me so angry and sad to see intelligent people believe such nonsense. Chrisahn (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  I for one certainly never said I believed the film as truth. And a film's content being absolute nonsense is not a criteria that we use... no more pertinant to a film article being kept or deleted than is the make-believe science of Star Wars or the magic of Harry Potter. Thanks for acknowledging the improvements, and I am sorry you are angry that some folks believe it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 4 December 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.