Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There is an apparent lack of substantial, reliable coverage from which to build a proper article. Google tests are insufficient to assert notability. Opinion of indef-blocked (effectively banned) user was completely discounted. — Scientizzle 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Money as Debt

Money as Debt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete This is fringe theory pushing and soapboxing, which is neither notable nor encyclopedic. This article is on an amateur documentary by an anti-semitic banking conspiracy theorist, originally only published on the internet (now with a home business, where he ships out DVDs he burns himself). It is the equivalent of Loose Change, except it's not nearly as well-known and is about gold bug conspiracies. It appears on various conspiracy theory sites and obscure blogs, but has never been referenced by any mainstream or academic sources because it's silly nonsense. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, this article has been speedy deleted in the past, with different spelling. [1] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And a similar article which has been deleted in the past: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete does not establish notability via independent references that are not blogs & such. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - rapidly and with extreme politeness.--Gregalton (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been reviewed favorably on-line. It's "fringe", but so what? This argument has been used relentlessly by Zenwhat and Gregalton to stifle debate before and it's a weak circular argument, dangerously close to censorship. It's fringe because trol...sorry....people like Zenwhat keep deleting it. Leave it for six months and I guarantee it wouldn't be "fringe" much longer. However the banks may have a slight PR problem. Which, truth be known, is what it's really all about, ain't it guys?--KarmasBlackSwan (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)←Sock of banned editor Karmaisking (talk · contribs)
One more point, before I get killed off (again). Screaming that something or someone is "anti-semitic" or is "mad" or is a "conspiracy theorist" is nothing other than a smear. It's an ad hominem argument at its most childish and pitiful. Not one substantive criticism of the video has been made other than it being "fringe". Calling someone a Nazi doesn't sound much like an argument. Oh... by the way... many anti-banking gold bugs were Jews. The great Murray Rothbard. The great Ludwig von Mises. To name two. I assume they were "self-hating Jews" because they had legitimate (some would say brilliant) insights into the parasitic evils of fractional reserve banking? I don't care whether Catholics, Jews, Scientologists or Martians support "unhinged" frb - if they do, they are mad, bad and dangerous to be around. Run, run like you are running away from contagious cancer.--KarmasBlackSwan (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)←Sock of banned editor Karmaisking (talk · contribs)
  • Delete (gross NPOV violations unlikely to be corrected) --Doopdoop (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Disagreement with claims made in the movie is not a reason for deleting the article. The article doesn't and shouldn't take the position argued in the movie. It's an article about the movie; the movie exists and is being distributed. This article is the logical place for facts/criticisms/etc. about the movie to reside. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Several reasons, see items below:
    • Please read my new update of the article with a new academic reference. I've been starting to scan through some databases of academic journals and international news at my university library, and found immediately an article in Anthropology Today written by economic anthropologist Keith Hart, who reviews the film. Academic journals is normally not for free - if you want a copy of this article, please contact me. I beg you therefore to reappraise your views and possibly change your votes accordingly.
    • I've also done some minor changes to the article, the least minor being I renamed it to Money as Debt (film) since Gregalton suggested so on the article's talkpage.
    • Zenwhat: Please give me a reference saying that Paul Grignon is an anti-semitic. If you don't have any reference meeting up to Wikipedia's standards, please stop from using unfounded statements in this debate.
    • Doopdoop: I cannot see why this article violates grossly NPOV. I've tried to give an objective description of the film and its reception, that's all. Please explain yourself.
    • A google search on <"loose change" avery> gave approx 100 000 hits, and on <"money as debt" grignon> approx 18000 hits. Okey that's less, a fifth, but it's still a huge amounts of webpages, which implies you cannot say it's non-notable compared to Loose Change.
    • Remember the article is a stub, and you should give it some time to be improved.
    • Editorial comment for this articles for deletion page: Since the template DeleteVote seems to be deleted, I've changed the beginning of every vote to simply Delete or Keep. I've also structured the contributions by means of indentation so it's easier to read. And I've readded KarmasBlackSwans comments as her/his vote is as good as anyones even though she/he is banned, and also her/his contribution was made before she/he was banned, and, finally, in my opinion her/his contribution is holding a not too disturbingly violent tone. Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Accusations of fringe, NPOV, and soapboxing are not reasons to delete an article. Notability is the only criteria required for an article to be included in Wikipedia. I do not think this film is significantly covered by reliable, independent sources. Existence of a topic does not mean it should be included. "Significantly covered" does not mean a single source. I have also tried to find more reliable sources, but after searching I do not think this film is significant enough yet. If 2 or 3 more reliable sources are found (not all within the same field), then I will change my vote to a keep. --EGeek (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Anthropology Today (a publication of the Royal Anthropological Institute) is a very reliable source, and a quick search reveals plenty of discussion elsewhere; academic sourcing is just as significant as sourcing from America's hit-and-run commercial media. That aside, the nominator's description of the documentary is maliciously inaccurate. The documentary is a criticism of fractional-reserve_banking, and has nothing to do 9/11, antisemitism, or gold bug conspiracies whatsoever; the nominator's comparison to Loose Change (a documentary which claims that the American government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks) is especially offensive. Shem(talk) 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: the subject being mentioned in an academic journal does not establish notability, certainly if we have no idea what the text says. (Nor would a passing mention in other media).--Gregalton (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (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.