Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money As Debt (film)

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. kur ykh 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money As Debt (film)[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete non notable film, fails WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a list of reviews here http://paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoneyasDebt/reviews.htm, If you think the film is useless or filled with lies and falsehoods, just say so in its page, it would be a good way to "expose" these lies if they exist, and to let other people know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasenj (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — Hasenj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Every one of those reviews is self-published by the reviewer so far as I can tell. As for the accuracy of the film, it is not relevant. WillOakland (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: huge number of google hits on film title + grignon, I'm sure there are some reliable sources in there somewhere but haven't time to go through the many pages of blogs and minor sites right now. It certainly looks notable (small "n") and I feel the sources must exist to make it "Notable". (I have no axe to grind here, just dropped by to Stub-sort it.) PamD (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is just not informative, too short and badly written. However, I would say, the topics of the movie and its opinions deserve a Wiki page. Keep but improve. Wilfried Elmenreich (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subjective importance of the movie's content to Wikipedia editors is not relevant. WillOakland (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I found a few sources but they are of dubious reliability or do not focus on the video itself. [1] [2] [3]

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.