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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable video. The sourcing for this article seems based on primary sources & non-RS blogs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The documentary is popular on the web, but there seem to be no reliable sources to validate its notability. WP:SOAP and WP:COAT are not problems because the article describes what the documentary says, rather than advancing its own independent argument. WP:FRINGE could be a problem, however. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NF: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after (1996) the film's initial release": 2006 by G. Edward Griffin; >2003 by STWR; 2008 by Chris Masterjohn; and [^{[deprecated source?]} 2008] by Alex Jones --Prius 2 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People (Griffin, Masterjohn and Jones) writing things on web sites that they operate is not the kind of "publication" needed. WillOakland (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G4 if applicable, possibly salt. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tired rehash without any reliable coverage. WillOakland (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepthis documentary explains everything about the current financial crises and as this documentary was released in 1995 it was not known.its only after the financial crises that it is becoming popular.I urge that this article be kept.It explains a lot about the financial sitution.hell you have zeitgest which is outright extreme but you want to delete this scientic documentary.

manchurian candidate 15:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs)

Zeitgeist was determined to have reliable third-party coverage. That a certain set of editors consider the content of the video novel or groundbreaking is no reason to keep, particularly since it essentially repeats material that circulated in Posse Comitatus during the 70s and 80s. You don't want to know where it was before that. WillOakland (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Oh wait... on second thought, I've got a pretty good idea. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.