Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters

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 as failing WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Money Masters

The Money Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is film fails our notability guidelines for films. There are no reliable sources asserting, or supporting notability — the sole "claim" of notability is that the producer asserts that 50,000 copies were sold, which is a diminutive number and does not meet the "widely distributed" requirement in the guidelines. The only sources I can find which cover the subject are either promotional, trivial, or both — complicating the assessment is that there are literally dozens of unrelated products with the same title. I urge deletion of this topic — Wikipedia should not be a promotional vehicle for films. Haemo (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

50,000 doesn't seem very diminutive to me. I'd say distributing to 50,000 people is distributing pretty widely. The video has been distributed globally, not just nationally or even locally. Again, that's pretty wide distribution. Robert Ham (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that the notability guidelines for films are not applicable because The Money Masters is not a film; it's a video. Robert Ham (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per rather verbose nom. No independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Nominator is right on. This article has no reliable sourcing to even allude to notability besides. It's also pretty POV, and there are no balancing perspectives on the subject. To boot, it's essentially a plot summary. But as for deletion, the reason is lack of notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Fix - Is probably the most notable video advocating monetary reform, followed by Money as Debt. However, as it stands the article is a mess and needs a balanced POV and references. -- MatthewKarlsen (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Do you have a reliable source for this claim of notability? --Haemo (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is reliable and it's very useful for understanding modern economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.17.79 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that it's useful is not a compelling argument; moreso when you consider the fact that this article is supposed to explain the film, and not its views about the modern economy. --Haemo (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you "explain" a film? What kind of explanation are you expecting? Robert Ham (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is not a MSM article spoon-feeding you what you think is notable and what is not is also not a compelling argument. And that is the only thing you rely upon in your argument. --David Shankbone 02:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• • No, it's not. It's squarely rooted in our notability guidelines. I don't care if it's mainstream, or whatever — I care that it's a reliable source, and your demeaning insinuations about my editorial judgment (and that of the other editors here) do nothing to advance your argument. --Haemo (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not useful. The article is just repeating the misleading [1] claims made in this video as if they were a fact Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I have been searching for even one reliable source that mentions this film at all, and so far have not found any. If the film meets any Wikipedia criterion for notability, I must have missed it. "Usefulness" and "reliability" of the film itself are not Wikipedia criteria for notability. Famspear (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Where Wikipedia continually fails. We strive to be an alternative to the MSM, but we wait for them to tell us whether we should explore or examine an issue, a movie, a book, whatever. The Money Masters has 106,000 Google hits. Just because The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times does not discuss something does not mean it is unnotable. Please, people, come up with better reasons to delete than "The Mainstream Media didn't tell me it's worth my attention." At a certain point, whe do we say, "Okay, this is clearly getting the attention of quite a few people and we should examine it neutrally, even though the MSM is ignoring it"? I know nothing about this movie, I have not seen it, and what I saw in its article I probably think it's a crock of BS. But that doesn't mean it is unnotable. --David Shankbone 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it does not — nor can anyone find — have any reliable sources which assert or support notability. Which, yes, makes it fail our notability guidelines for films. Your argument about the number of GHits is, as I mention in the nomination, bogus because there are a bunch of things called "The Money Masters", which have nothing to do with this film, and are probably notable. Arguments about the "mainstream media" have no bearing, as our guidelines are very clear on this subject — your suggestion amounts to "let's ignore our guidelines because I feel this is notable". --Haemo (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - There is a critique of The Money Masters (and another video from William Still) by G. Edward Griffin who is himself a notable person. Robert Ham (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  I actually found this source, while searching — It's a critique of Bill Still's views, as laid out in a couple of his documentaries. There is virtually nothing said of the documentaries at all; in fact, they are mentioned by name each only once in the course of the article. Furthermore, Freedom Force international is not a reliable source — moreover, as Mr Griffin happens to be the founder and director, so I'm pretty sure self-publication guidelines apply.--Haemo (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  Mr. Griffin's strongest claim to fame is that he has a Wikipedia entry about him, it seems. According to Wikipedia, he is a Certified Financial Planner. Even if this is so, and even if you view CFP as an economics credential, his voicing an opinion about The Money Masters is hardly proof of the notability of the latter. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This home-video is noteworthy and it has some people listening. Not just students like me. It is a time-document and definitely deserves a place in a encyclopedia of the world.

--The question is: who benefits? Dmitri Schrama, Utrecht, The Netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.190.37 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why is it notable? Do you have any reliable sources to support this assertion? --Haemo (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (Reviews could not be located after a long search, therefore not notable) - First, I'm Ekonomics_geek. I tried editing the article by supplying the criticism section [2], but Robert Ham kept deleting it, arguing that my criticism is OR and not a peer reviewed work of science, which is ironic, because neither is this film. I suggested that the criticism section [3] should stay just until the film's reviews could be located, because quite frankly, the article read like an ad or a propaganda piece. However, the only "review" that could be googled was that (IMO not notable at all) Griffin mention, and Robert Ham just kept deleting the criticism several times per day. I don't have time for this nonsense. So I left (and threw out the password to the original account). If Wikipedia wants to be edited by authors unfamiliar with the subject matter, so be it. I'm glad someone nominated the article for deletion though. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The deleting of this information is utter jibberish. It is a informative and revealing documentary. I urge you people to see it, before you judge in this matter. As my dutch friend above, I ask: Que bono? avien (talk) 1:00, 4. February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Ekonomics geek2 (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If this forum debates solely the quality of the entry, or the credibility of material presented within "The Money Masters" DVD per se', I cannot take time to discern. If the later, I own the video and several notable people wrote reviews/comments that were on the brochure that came with the DVD. Negatives reviews/comments, weren't included for apparent reasons. The comment carrying the most "weight" was from Milton Friedman to wit: "As you know, I am entirely sympathetic with the objectives of you Monetary Reform Act...You deserve a great deal of credit for carrying through so thoroughly on your own conception...I am impressed by your persistence and attention to detail in your successive revisions..Best Wishes." Some other recommendations: Dr. W. Cleon Skousen, author, "The Naked Capitalist" and "The Naked Communist"; Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, and G. Edward Griffin, author, "The Creature from Jekyl Island, A Second Look at The Federal Reserve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.182.96 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 2008

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.