- The Money Masters documentary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- The Money Masters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) (note: the article has been userfied)
The article seemes to have been deleted early 2008.
On its archived discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Money_Masters I can find several people who just state that the article ( the film ) is "not noteable" without even justifying their claim. After which they go on to "disagree" with the content of the film. An Encyclopedia entry is not subject to wether or not one likes or agrees with the content. One does not remove articles about nazi germanys films by Leni Riefenstahl on the argument that its content isnt noteable.
The notability of the film lies in that it has been growing steadily over the years and is now a prevalent phenomna
and because it has steadily increased in its spread throughout the internet, now has several million references throughout the internet. On that note itself it is a phenomena worthy of noting in wikipedia.
I have tried several times to conduct a civil debate on this, I added the hangon tab, I provided verifiable arguments and pointed out that I do not care about the views in the film.
the views presented in the film are not what is in question here.
- I do however suggest that the article is renamed The Money Masters (film) on the same lines as Loose Change (film)
Some of the most crucial and verifiable arguments for its inclusion go as follows:
- The existence and widespread usage of and references to this documentary is a verifiable fact.
- Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena (spanning two decades now) and has a large "following" no matter its content.
- This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann
- The film gains several hundred thousands of independent hits throughout the english speaking world in google searches
- It's content is also reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online), no matter wether one agrees with such views or not. This makes it noteable in itself as a source for finding out what and where the rationale for such movements come from!
Any argument just stating "50.000 sold dvd's" or "the film is not noteable", " I dont consider it noteable" can not pass for justified legitimate arguments.
I expect serious sincere responses conducted as adults and not the slapping on of wikipedia guidelines to pretend that this user has not read guidelines and using that as an argument for deletinon.
The issue here is the article, not this user or my abilities or errors as a wikipedia contributor .
Again, remember, we are not doing this to review "views", we contribute here to inform people around the world. Wether we like or agree with the information or not.
sincerely, Nunamiut (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide independent references to substantiate your claims? MER-C 12:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google refrences. alternatively contact google if you want any more specific verification of their linking/refrence policies. The same goes for youtube. As far as I can tell they do not provide any obvious overall hits statistics that is easily monitored, but a search gives huge amounts of hits. It is possible to go to the individual userpages and see if they have made hits statistics statistics public. I'm no expert in these matters, but is abundantly clear to even the layman that this videos distribution is widespread. For more factual references I'll have to referr you to normal search and investigation of the matter. I could post a dozen links here but I do not see it as meaningful since you all are able to type and use google. Milton Friedman + "The Money Masters" should suffice to document that part of the noteability claim, and or going to the films official website and checking their refrences and documentation. There are dozens of reviews of the movie online but I do not know which author(s)/experts/sites are your favourites so again I'll have to let you choose which (or what amount of) results you wish to consider before you make up your own mind. finally I'll just have to echo users Hobit and MacGyverMagic (if its at all unclear) : I'd like to see this at AfD, undelete and list / Overturn and relistNunamiut (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you at least give us some citations for the comments by "several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann"? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, can you please explain why the article was repeatedly recreated, including under a different name to escape page protection, instead of the normal appeal process being followed? Stifle (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flat out dishonest arguments again. As if a single users ability to respond and defend the article in time somehow supersedes all other previous arguments and the obvious fact that this film exists as a phenomena and the actual verifiable fact of its noteability as a widespread phenomena. Do you have a sense of proportions at all? You can see the moon for yourself but if _I_ fail to describe it and defend it to you, you're pretending the proper logic that follows is deletion of reference to it. This is clearly a dishonest train of thought, putting the burden of proof for any phenomena on to a single user each time, as if going to each jew individually and asking them each alone to prove conclusively with documentation that the holocaust took place to you, when the material is aboundantly clear and visible all around you for you to look at. This article is neither "my article" nor my "work" or "property", this is issue is on wether or not wikipedia admins chooses to honestly accept the fact that the phenomena exists" You sir are behaving like a juvenile in your line of argumentation, pretending that attacking my abilities is a sufficient reason for keeping the article deleted. I have already provided you with proper arguments. I will not waste any more time disussing it here if juvenile attempts at discrediting others like this user has attempted are taken as justification to leave the article deleted, I wont bother wasting any more time in an environment that stoops to such low levels of reasoning and behaviour.
undelete and list / Overturn and relistNunamiut (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've had your say already, please don't add any more bolded comments. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'll be happy to amend my opinion if you will provide the answer to my question. If this was a court of law (which I'm glad it isn't) your case would have been struck out by now for want of prosecution. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist Whatever the initial version of the article didn't have, the latest version I checked had several independent sources, though not all listed in the reference section. The claim in the original debate that it didn't have independent sources no longer applies, so the G4 speedy was misapplied. Whether they are enough reliable sources should be reassessed. The claim that film notability guidelines don't apply is faulty. Book guidelines apply to magazines, journals and other written publications, film guidelines are pretty much the same, they apply to documentaries, films, videos, and animations among other things in the same vain. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look to be a pure recreation as sources now exist (in the cached version at least). I'd like to see this at AfD, so undelete and list Hobit (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article describes the film, but doesn't get into anything about why this film is notable. It's a film that thinks there's a banking conspiracy. Umm, there's more than a few of those out there already. The one possible attempt is the 50,000 claim, which is sourced to the producer. Yup, that's noted in the article, but seriously, that's a claim for notability? Another reference is to Nexus, which seems to cover conspiracy theories. shrug - no idea on that one. I'm not seeing anything present in the article that makes this film noteworthy. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it stands is not in question. Its the actual existence and noteability of the phenomena to deem it "worthy" of an article at all. We can discuss and change the content later. The article is the way it is because its not possible (and hasnt been) for people to update it or make it adhere, comply to the standards you ask for precicely because it has been deleted and kept out of anyones view. The film is a phenomena wether you read me saying so here or not. Your abilities or wishes to make serious inquierys notwithstanding the film has been endorsed/recieved praise from a Nobel Laureate in Economics, Milton Friedman. Can you please tell me why I or anyone else should value your opinion in matters of economic history above those of an economist, ANY economist? close to half a million hits in google makes it noteable in itself as a internet phenomena far axceeding any other cult film in its genre. I'll again ask all please to try to adhere to honest debateing techniques.
undelete and list / Overturn and relistNunamiut (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please don't add multiple bolded comments to the discussion, as it may give a misleading appearance that your position has more support than it actually does. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be conflating "honest debateing [sic] techniques" with "only people who agree with me can contribute here". Please accept that others may not share your opinion, or your zeal to have the article reinstated. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We live in curious times indeed. Episodes of the Simpsons have/get entire full page articles devoted to them, but any alternative media dissent or otherwise on pretty crucial and important socio-economic or political issues ( most anything and everything is political in some form or another btw..) and a lot of debates, however large an audience they have reached, are pretended not to exist and not to be worth mentioning. Seems There really is a war on for peoples minds.. they just dont get to hear or see documentation or get to see all information, or even see what has transpired and make their own choices and draw their own conclusions, because the information is simply not being made available to them and being pre-censored and erased from the mainstream consciousness. Our priorities and focus are obviously pretty sick these days. Not to mention our understanding of whats important in this world. Oh well. I guess its just a consequence the numbscull dumbing down of public education. A total lack of ability to understand or grasp certain very essential concepts of information and the documenting of our shared history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several articles on Simpsons episodes could do with being merged and/or deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion the article does not provide sufficient reliable sources about the film rather than supporting/discussing the ideas it promotes, to justify overturning a correctly closed AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion It seems as if we should have an article on this fringe "documentary", but I don't see how that's possible, considering that I couldn't find a single reliable source for it. Although there are 136,000 Ghits for it, the majority of what I saw were sites sellling the video, which doesn't count, plus a few fringe non-reliable sites discussing it. With no reliable sources, it's really not possible to have an article. Given the state of play, the AfD comments that said "Not notable" seem perfectly reasonable, so I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion. (Incidentally, the article, or some version of it, is userfied at User:Xiutwel/The Money Masters, for those who want to see what it was.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet Again. The issue is not the content of the current article,(or the movie. Are you here to judge the content of movies too???) but the actual existence of any documentation of it at all for people who wonder what it is, who made it and any exisitence of any info on it at all. But it has been completely impossible to even correct anything or create a new improved version since it is immediately deleted. The issue is that this film is a cult phenomena that probably has a larger audience and has been viewed by more people on the internet than any other of its kind in internet history. Google video had a couple of hundreds of thousands of views a few years ago. The film is abundant all over youtube and the internet. IF it has sold fifty thousand copies and we reason that not all viewers watched it alone, an additional 100 thousand. It is widely referred to, and discussed. I cannot find all the majority selling it as is claimed. That in it self would be pretty astonishing, more than a hundred thousand sites selling it.. This must be the best hidden cult movie in history.. So where do you suggest the improved article on the film is posted, and who is the all knowing individual at your history department it should be submitted to for approval? But thats enough. I've read Enough dishonest bullshit for a good while. 1984 indeed. You sirs are shills. Goodbye. Nunamiut (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|