Deletion of The Money Masters (2nd nomination)

Comment: I agree that notability is insufficiently proven to maintain the article. - 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: mostly because Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability|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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:ILIKEIT)