Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Matter of Faith


 * 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 00:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A Matter of Faith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFILM. Doesn't meet it on GNG guidelines - the only coverage I'm finding is an announcement in a local source that the film is filming nearby and needs extras, a couple announcements that the picture will be screened locally, and AV Club taking up another site's snark over the trailer. As for the numbered NFILM criteria, Rotten Tomatoes finds "no critic reviews yet"; it is not yet five years old and thus cannot meet historic criteria; I find no sign that the film has won a major award, been chosen for preservation, or is discussed as part of notable academic film programs. (And to stave off anyone bringing up the site Answers In Genesis, that doesn't get counted as a reliable source for notability purposes under WP:NFSOURCES as they are a company who was "working with it on the production and release", as AiG was giving guidance to people on how to sponsor showings, and the film's website was steering people to AiG.) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Four of the actors in the film, as well as the producers are apparently notable enough to have their own articles. Concerning Answers in Genesis (and also Creation Ministries International), I see no evidence that they helped produce the film and that there is a conflict of interest (I speak not ideologically or doctrinally). The two organizations are in the resources section of the film's website, but this is likely simply because they share the same views. Very few creationist films make it into theaters, and these organizations care a lot about this topic, so it's natural that they would actively promote each other. I don't think mentioning AiG is a problem here. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * AiG staff had a consulting role on the film. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article you shared (and Ken Ham's blog post linked to the article) shows that one AiG staff member served as a content consultant for the film. This is a far cry from AiG helping produce the film. They promoted the film because they agreed with its message. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that a point of knowledge or an assumption? Because their attempt to raise investors for the film showings and so forth all look like someone with some skin in the game. Not that they would be considered a significant source on film in any case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear to everyone (except probably ardent critics who disparage AiG and everything they do and believe) that the creation/evolution issue is important and means a lot to the organization. One can see in all they do. You could see their efforts in promoting the film as a way to make money, but (especially considering that only one AiG staff member is doing anything with the film) it's much more reasonable that AiG saw this movie as a way to promote their views and did everything in their power to have as many people see it as possible. If I saw that someone were making a movie on a topic that I cared deeply about, I would also do all in my power to promote it. There is no evidence, at least that I've seen, that shows AiG has a conflict of interest (in a non-ideological/philosophical sense), and its actions are in line with everything else I've seen. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. For purposes of this discussion I'm willing to discount the AiG source, and I also acknowledge that many of the newspaper articles about this film are largely rewrites of publicity; but there are quite a number of them, and there's the article at The A.V. Club and a shorter one at Death and Taxes Magazine .  Not the strongest sourcing in the world and it's borderline but enough for me.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've added a review from the Dove Foundation and it looks like Birth Movies Death wrote about it. I'm unsure if BMD is considered a RS on here though and its TOU is a bit concerning since they make "no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of the Content" and that if something is wrong, they may or may not correct it. My reaction is to say that it's not, given a read of that page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm kind of on the fence with this one. There really aren't a lot of reviews out there and the majority of sources I've found are local-type news articles that are predominantly written to discuss an upcoming showing in their town. However what makes these usable is that they're articles about the film as a whole rather than just routine listings of an event. This isn't the strongest keep, but it seems to be enough to pass NFILM at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:46, 21 February 2017 (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.