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. Although reviews have been provided their validity for establishing notability has been sufficiently refuted. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Money Masters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-noteworthy documentary film. No relevant articles about the film, the WorldNetDaily piece being a paid advertisement. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are abundant sources to substantiate the existence of this film, but not one of them is reliable, and, in the absence of appropriate, third-party sources giving significant coverage, verifiability is unlikely. dci | TALK 01:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is definitely a keeper. The movie is among the few that go deeply into the history of central banking as well as the Rothschild dynasty. The film has been around for a long time on the internet and continues to be watched by the millions on a multitude of video sites. The follow-up movie The Secret of Oz also won an award at the Beloit International Film Festival. There are reviews available online, including on Amazon and IMDB, it is mentioned on articles for example here and here and searches on sites such as Google, Google Videos and YouTube yield millions of results. Of course the information provided within the movie is controversial since many poweful interests wish to conceal many aspects of it. Anyone who thinks the basic gist of it is bullshit should read the many other resources, movies and books on these same subjects, much of the information is revealed even within the official Rothschild History and Biography. Loewenherts (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is expressing any disagreement with the video's content, just a concern that there haven't been third-party, objective sources that cover it in significant detail. dci | TALK 23:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell how biased this website is 'non-noteworthy', why even add that piece because you didn't think it was noteworthy? I swear this site is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.240.135 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not delete this article. The Money Masters is an incredibly important documentary. I can't believe the page is even being considered for deletion! Why??? It's relevance has not diminished over time and will not diminish. Deleting this page will diminish the relevance of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.34 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the same reasons as dcl. 3M (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relevant [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7761642686530075971&as_sdt=20005&sciodt=0,9&hl=en Google Scholar) hits, [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+money+masters%22+AND+%28Carmack+OR+Still+OR+movie+OR+film+OR+documentary+OR+video%29&hl=en&safe=active&gl=us&authuser=0&gbv=2&biw=1600&bih=831&sa=X&ei=qgY9Uaj_OonA0QG7l4DYBw&ved=0CCEQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1995%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2014&tbm=nws Google News) (filtered because 'the money masters' is commonly used in other contexts). --Gwern (contribs) 22:20 10 March 2013 (GMT)

Keep per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What significant coverage do you see? If it's out there, we need to add it to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claiming this film being non-noteworthy is silly at best. This film is highly controversial, but non-noteworthy it’s not. This film has been influential in the quest for the truth about the financial system and helped many to open up for new ideas. This article is about the film itself not the quality of it. If Wikipedia would be filtering articles based on the content of the product/item/issue, then this site would be a single welcome page at best, as most things can be debated on. Deleting this article based on somebodies idea of the items noteworthiness renders Wikipedia useless as only “correct” views can be expressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddinghouse (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is certainly noteworthy. I'm not sure exactly what kind of coverage advocates of deletion are looking for. To suggest that reliable sources need to be produced to confirm the very existence of a film that anyone can see exists is taking Wikipedia policies to a ridiculous extreme. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a significant number of WP contributors have seen it and have been impacted it does not mean that notability is conferred onto the subject. Articles about such topics really need objective sources, and there is a dearth of them. dci | TALK 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is no place for the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, therefore the "noteworthiness" or "notability" of a film alone should not be the basis for this article's deletion. This Wikipedia article is first and foremost an article about the documentary itself, rather than the validity or substance of its plot or subject. Since this film undeniably exists, the article should not be deleted on the basis of its supposed non-existence or disdain of its content. It's not necessary to agree with the content of the documentary, but deleting the article denies the fact of the documentary's existence as well as its reception from critics. Furthermore, the reception section of the article contains sourced comments from well-known individuals such as Nomi Prins and G. Edward Griffin, providing an argument that the film is indeed "noteworthy." Instead of being deleted, this article should be expanded and strengthened with more sources on its production and reception to balance the current focus on its content. Sashaarrabi91 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. < br/>

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I closed this a Keep, on the basis of a consensus being reached; my close was objected to on the basis that the sources for notability were not adequately reliable. The challenge may possibly have been correct, and I my practice in cases of a good faith challenge of this nature is to revert my close and relist for further discussion. I suggest a discussion of the individual sources, along with a search for others. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments pertaining to the above discussion:
- The documentary is not notable. Simply put, it has not received significant coverage in reliable, objective, third-party sources.
  - The current sources in the article are less than adequate. Several of them are affiliated with the subject, while others are simply links to places where the documentary can be watched online.
  - The PBS source is an expired video, and does not establish the subject's notability, but the opinion of someone who reviewed the documentary.
  - The Cineaste source and other reviews are only applicable to the section regarding critical reception.
  - Other sources are closely affiliated with the group responsible for the film.
- Many of the keep !voters above have not edited outside of this topic and, more specifically, outside of this discussion.
- Further, many of those !voting keep seem to assume that deletion arguments are attacking the documentary. They are not. They are stating that the subject lacks sufficient coverage in objective, reliable sources.

Thanks for your patience in reading this belaboring commentary. dci | TALK 21:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is poorly sourced and I don't think there's a single cite there worth hanging an entire article on. Nothing turns up in a quick Lexis/Nexis search. Google Books turns up a few books which cite the video, but I'm not convinced that's enough to hang an article on either. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that notability is insufficiently proven to maintain the article. WP:FRINGE- it's not an issue of disagreeing with the content of the documentary, it's an issue of significant coverage in secondary sources, and I don't think the film meets that burden. Several of the editors supporting keeping the article (including those, as DCI said, seem to be clearly SPA/ips specifically targeting this discussion) argue that mere existence of the film justifies inclusion. Existence does not confer notability. And it is also clear that several of these supporting editors do not exactly have a NPOV on the subject. The admin who closes this discussion ought to take a good look into the sources actually cited in the article. Biased, fringe coverage shouldn't be held up to prove notability. Ducknish (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mostly because existence ≠ notability. Yep, it exists, no doubt about it. But that does not mean it is notable. For that, we need multiple reliable sources that discuss, review, debate, etc, the subject itself. Sites that simply allow the film to be downloaded or viewed cannot be considered significant coverage of the subject itself. Just like a book being on a shelf in a library or a horse being on a stock-list at a stables or a product being on a shipping manifest. None of those things confer notability. That some editors here have seen the film and either like it or not is also not an inclusion criteria. Show me a couple of decent reviews or responses and it'll be a different story. Otherwise, delete. Stalwart111 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the meat-puppetry here has been spectacular. I mean, silly and pathetic, but spectacular. Stalwart111 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Quoting the author directly above: "Show me a couple of decent reviews or responses and it'll be a different story.": Here's a decent review, http://www.skeptically.org/bhe/id3.html ; and there are lots of interesting responses here: http://www.amazon.com/Masters-International-Bankers-Control-America/dp/B0018IPKCG Christopherbalz (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, but neither of those could really be considered a reliable source (see WP:RS). One is an amazon.com listing with some viewer comments and the other looks like someone's personal website where attribution, author, date, expertise, etc remain unclear. At best, it would be considered self-published (like a blog), but I'm sure we could even confirm that from the site itself. That's a long way from the "couple of decent reviews" I was looking for. Stalwart111 03:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and sorry, again, but you have to see the irony in me quoting WP:MEAT only to have a user that hasn't been active since 2009 (and never in WP: space) show up to respond. Stalwart111 03:48, 18 March 2013 (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.