Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Numerically it's 14 to 8 for keeping (in contrast to the first AfD, which I closed as keep, where it was 22 to 7). As in the first AfD, the core policy question is whether the topic has independent reliable sourcing to meet our notability requirements. Also as in the first AfD, the dispute is mainly about whether coverage of this religious, creationist film by religious and/or creationist groups should be considered independent and reliable. Again, these are not questions to which our policies and guidelines provide a clear-cut answer, and so I can't decide them by fiat. Perhaps this is something which should be discussed at the policy level, with this article as an example. But given the more substantial proportion of "delete" opinions this time around, I think that the proper outcome of this AfD is "no consensus, default to keep".  Sandstein  09:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Genesis History?
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was previously kept due to assertions of widespread coverage but recent discussions on Talk have undermined that claim to a very significant degree. For example, Metacritic, IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes show no professional reviews of the film.

As a film, it unambiguously fails WP:NMOVIE. It has received no reviews from well known film critics, a year after release. Not just no full-length reviews, no reviews at all. The sources that do discuss it fail the independence test as laid out in NMOVIE: The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic (which by definition excludes creationist groups). To pass NMOVIE, a film ususally hits several, and often all, the criteria in NMOVIE. It is hard to argue that this film passes a single one.

So the next question is, does it pass WP:GNG? GNG also includes the independence clause: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Apart from Patheos bloggers, the only actual coverage of this movie is from creationist groups like AiG (some of whose people were in the film). It has a listing at Box Office Mojo, but that is a directory and is not discriminating. Press releases were mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel (mockingly, it might be noted) and Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette, but neither included any actual analysis or intellectually independent coverage. There is a brief mention in a Business Insider piece titled "How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump" which is primarily about the use of propaganda films as a tool for riling up the base. A piece in the more or less mainstream Christian News is also clearly based on a press release, and the characterisation of the film as "Affirm[ing] Truthfulness of Biblical Record" also fails the independence test (see below). Another piece titled "Evidence of Young Earth Creationism Will Debunk Current Scientific Paradigm, Filmmaker Says" is an interview so not intellectually independent. There's an interview in AMFM magazine. It's redlinked for a reason.

The fundamental problem is this: Is Genesis History? is a simple question with a yes/no answer, and the answer is, unambiguously, no. Every single substantive source about the movie is from a group that gets this answer wrong. It's a collection of interviews with people who have scientific credentials, advancing "creation science", a pseudoscientific form of creationism. See Project Steve. So we have a creationist film where the only sources that might be considered reliable are creationists, and they are not intellectually independent because of the walled garden effect. A Venn diagram of the people involved in the movie and the groups that sponsored it, also includes people in the creationist organisations that commented on the movie. Nobody outside the bubble appears to have taken any notice of it. Not even God Awful Movies has reviewed it. The article had to resort to Patheos blogs to offset the obviously biased tone of the reception section. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly suggest that editors read the closer's note on the previous AfD, which makes a very clear (and blessedly brief,) summary of the notability issue. Closed as KEEP last fall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Plenty of independent sources already in the article. If there's any doubt about notability I just added three more independent sources . Within the last couple of days more than 50% of the article content has been deleted--all of it appears sourced. We may need to get an admin involved to see if any editors need sanctioning. – Lionel(talk) 09:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How would an article describing a pseudoscience-filled propaganda film as "a science-filled documentary" qualify as reliable? Taking the claims at face value inherently fails any test of reliability, because they are so widely debunked. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ... Flying colors. Let's take a look at the sources you just added: a press release, a local announcement of a screening that provides nothing resembling a review (this is the sort of thing that kept getting cited at the previous AfD, as though it is in-depth independent coverage of the film), and an oddly fawning review on a blog with a newspapery name (I couldn't find any information about it beyond that it was founded by a couple people with some journalism cred, so I looked at the author to see that he's not actually a film reviewer -- I've gone back to the middle of last year in his posts and haven't found another -- and that his last gig was at this obviously very reputable publication). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That doesn't take away from the fact that many independent sources either report or comment on the movie: the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (newspaper of record of Arkansas), Business Insider, Orlando Sentinel, The Christian Post, AMFM magazine, World, and Newsmax, among others. This article has received quite a bit of coverage from independent sources, especially considering that it's a small independent film that was in theaters for a few days. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - The big question at the previous AfD seemed to be whether to treat this as a film or as something inseparable from its fringe content such that sources would need to meet the standards outlined at WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGE. If the latter, well, there's basically nothing. The last AfD was closed according to the former, with several people stating unequivocally that it's notable as a film. Ok, so then the sources we need are reviews from reliable publications known for film criticism. If they are known not for film criticism but for pushing a particular ideology, it is not a reliable source for these purposes. Likewise, if it is an announcement of a screening with no coverage of the film itself, if it's a reworked press release, if it's evident the person writing the "review" hasn't even seen the film, then it's not sufficient. What we have is a veneer of notability by superficial local coverage, along with in-depth coverage limited to advocacy organizations/publications. Unfortunately, if the same numeric majority of participants show up to claim that it's notable because of a bunch of superficial and agenda-driven sources, we're probably going to head for the same result. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources I have seen are either:
 * not independent
 * not having significant coverage of the subject
 * not reliable
 * .2001:A61:4E6:C500:5DD1:DCD9:3049:64D7 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and Rhododendrites. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - As NFRINGE clearly states: A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. The subject appears to be covered within the creationist spectrum, but not extensively, as required per the guideline, by independent coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about a movie on a fringe topic, not a fringe topic itself. Also, the sources this article relies upon are independent of the article's topic, even if some of the individual reviews are not. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And, as I said, the majority of coverage stems from the creationist viewpoint, a fringe school of thought. That cannot be considered neutral, and the article looks to act like a promotional tool in a roundabout (not-so-clever) way for the fringe topic.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not true, since there are many anti-YEC sources (such as Biologos) and independent non-YEC sources (World, the Christian Post, several others) that discussed the movie. And regardless, so little space is the article was devoted not only to explicitly YEC reviews, but also to any positive reviews in general. In fact, more space in the article was devoted to an incident where one of the people in the movie came out against it than to those positive reviews. Also, the paragraph discussing negative reviews was over twice as long as the positive review paragraph. If the article (of a movie) was intended to act as some "promotional tool", it's failing big time. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and restore deleted info back to the longstanding version: This article clearly meets WP:NFILM, and it has received a large amount of coverage from independent and reliable sources that are clearly "not directly associated with the topic", as the previous AfD found, such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (the newspaper of record of Arkansas), Business Insider, Orlando Sentinel, The Christian Post, World, and Newsmax. All of these sources are either secular or do not take any position on creation/evolution, making them all undisputably independent of the film (as the last AfD also found) -- the nominator has a rather high standard for source "independence", as any other movie on a less controversial topic would pass an AfD with flying colors with that kind of coverage (and there are many existing movie articles with far less coverage on WP, as several editors pointed out last AfD). And contrary to what the nominator implies, sources don't have to say "this movie is false BS" to be considered independent. Regarding the sources from YEC organizations (along with the many reviews from other sources), they are reviews and were cited as such -- reviews are inherently opinion-based as they record someone's opinion of the movie. Let's remember that the YEC reviews were condensed in a single sentence that merely named the orgs and nothing else, and that some undisputably mainstream organizations, such as The BioLogos Foundation, whose founder and president Francis Collins was appointed NIH director under Obama, were cited with much more extensive coverage. Either way, we're only citing their opinions of the movie, rather than scientific info (remember, this is a movie, not a belief), and WP:BIASEDSOURCES applies for these reviews, making them appropriate to cite. And while many of these organizations may have fringe beliefs, they are definitely not fringe by any cultural/clout definition. The article did not and does not rely on sources such as those, and rather relied upon independent sources such as what I listed above for the non-review/reaction info. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just found a review by The Dove Foundation: Another example of the many independent sources for this article, which the previous AfD overwhelmingly affirmed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whose website states “reviews are based on Christian values and we want to serve all families and individuals who love great entertainment, but also want to spend their time and money on God-glorifying storytelling.” hardly a reliable neutral source? Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a Christian organization is irrelevant here, since -- as the majority of editors on the previous AfD found -- Christianity isn't the fringe or non-independent thing here, it's YEC (and some negative reviews by Christians were cited--and keep in mind that I'm differentiating the reviews from the other sources besides Dove that I mentioned above). That said, I actually didn't realize it was a Christian-based organization, and its Wikipedia article didn't help. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AfD does make decisions like restoring a specific version. Also: see WP:OWN. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See this, along with WP:AGF. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The nominator claims that this article is somehow a peice of pro-YEC flattery, referring to "the obviously biased tone of the reception section", but just take a look at the section -- the section had four paragraphs, and only one of them (a short one) listed positive reviews (both from YEC and non-YEC orgs). That one paragraph did not mention what those positive opinions actually said of the movie and only name-dropped the orgs. This is in contrast to the first, largest, and most prominent paragraph in the section, which listed several negative reviews (some of them were quite strong) and went into relative detail describing specifically what they said in those reviews (that paragraph was over twice as long as the positive reivew paragraph). The last paragraph mentions a dispute where one of the people in the movie criticized it, something that's quite embarrassing for the moviemakers. And somehow this section was a piece of YEC flattery? I guess one small paragraph of positive reviews is too much. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose JzG's changing of my AfD comment above (1,2). Not only does it violate WP:TPO, but the word "comment" is generally used in comments in AfDs and RfCs in order to differentiate from !votes, and no admin would count me twice with that wording. Also, Rhododendrites did the same thing (making a comment with the bolded "comment" in front after making a separate "delete" vote), but nobody changed his. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Before we start to see a repeat of the last time, with a series of people !voting keep per 1990'sguy's sources, let's take a look at how much weight any of those !votes should be given: Literally every source 1990'sguy points to is terrible. There is not even one real movie review among them. We have announcements of local screenings in local papers, press releases, and interviews with people associated with the movie. It's not even clear any of them actually saw the movie apart from the last one, the Dove Foundation. While I'm sue the "Faith-Friendly Seal" is useful information for some parents, it's far, far from film criticism that we would use to support an article about a film and also far from an independent organization in the sense of WP:FRIND. These large blocks of text with links to real-sounding sources functions to provide a veneer of mainstream coverage to which 1990'sguy would like to add a bunch of creationist advocacy organizations as sources. It's hard to maintain an assumption of good faith with arguments like that we should somehow consider a review by organizations like Answers in Genesis reliable because... all movie reviews are opinions (!). Either we treat it as a film and use real reviews from real film critics (there are none), or we treat it as a piece of creationist apologetics and use WP:FRINGE guidelines for sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources I mentioned were non-movie reviews from sources undisputably independent of the article topic -- and that's OK because we don't need reviews (aka. people's opinions of the movie) for a movie to meet NFILM. Considering that Arkansas's largest newspaper (with a daily subscription of nearly 200,000 and a Sunday subscription of 80,000 more), one of the most notable Christian newspapers (which doesn't take any position on YEC), and other independent sources published in-depth articles of the movie (along with Business Insider, which established the movie's wider cultural significance), it clearly meets WP:NFILM (keep in mind that even some atheists and anti-YECers were convinced by those sources in the previous AfD).
 * In response to your "a veneer of mainstream coverage to which 1990'sguy would like to add a bunch of creationist advocacy organizations as sources" comment (which is simply ridiculous), I do not and never wanted to cite them as regular sources. I cited them specifically (and briefly) to provide a short description of what they thought of the movie in the article's "reaction" section per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, and I added them along with negative reviews by anti-YEC people/orgs which took up much more space. Either way, this movie did receive coverage from several independent sources, and more such sources than many movies with WP articles. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As a point of simple fact, their independence has been disputed, with extensive rationale, so your use of the word "indisputably" is, well, disputable. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a strong consensus reached in the previous AfD (that several atheists and other anti-YECers agreed with) that those sources are independent and that "the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic" per NFILM. You're the first one arguing otherwise, and I think your arguments are ridiculous, since many of your criticisms of these sources devolve down to them not explicitly calling YEC garbage in their reporting ("intellectually independent"). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. The intellectual independence of the sources was not properly addressed in that debate. And your view on this is hardly neutral, having written both this article and its counterpart on Conservapedia. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The independence was properly addressed -- several editors noted that sources don't need to say things such as "this movie was complete lies and garbage" in order to be independent. That's what you mean by "intellectual independence" -- even if it's from the largest and most prestigious newspaper in a decent-sized state with around 200,000 daily subscriptions, it somehow can't be cited because it's not as critical of the movie as you want it to be? That's ridiculous, and the source and the others like it show the article is worthy of keeping. The second part of your comment violates WP:AGF, as well as WP:PERSONAL since you're using ad-hominem reasoning in an attempt to discredit me. I have personal beliefs and off-Wiki affiliations (like everyone commenting here), but I try to not let those affect my work on this site. The fact that I disagree with you on many issues is irrelevant -- that's not the criteria for adhering to NPOV. Also, I waited 5 1/2 months (long after its theater and DVD releases) before I created the WP article of this movie because I knew it would be a controversial topic (I wasn't let down :) ) and I wanted it to be top-notch (of course, that didn't stop certain editors from wanting to wipe it off the encyclopedia). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Properly addressed in your opinion as a creationist and the original author of the article, both here and on Conservapedia. You don't seem to me to give half enough consideration tot he possibility that you might not be the best judge of that. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, your comments blatantly go against WP:AGF and WP:PERSONAL. You're trying to discredit me by noting my using my personal beliefs and off-wiki affiliations (and everyone commenting here has them) and using ad-hominem reasoning in an attempt to discredit me. My personal beliefs and off-wiki affiliations mean nothing to the edits I make on this site. And by the way, just read the AfD -- the majority of editors agreed with me about the independence of the sources. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am merely pointing out that however fervently you believe what you say, and however often you state it as ineffable fact, there is substantial evidence that editors with much less investment in the subject, disagree. You really need to start allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong. The reason you might be wrong is inextricably linked to your self-identified creationist beliefs and the fact that you edit at the creationist anti-Wikipedia, Conservapedia. You have a strong emotional investment in beliefs that Wikipedia accurately reflects as scientifically incorrect, and those beliefs are directly tied up in this specific movie. Your emotional investment in the subject is not evil, it is not disqualifying, but it is a serious and material bias that you consistently show no signs of recognizing as such. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I direct you to Acdixon's comment below. Second, considering that I waited over five months (with the option of waiting indefinitely) in order to be sure that this topic was notable and well-sourced enough to have a Wikipedia article on (long after the theater and DVD/BluRay releases), I don't think I have an "emotional investment" to the article, at least in any way you're thinking of. And besides, many editors have already !voted in favor of keeping the article (a separate debate from the validity of the movie's content, which would blatantly violate WP:NOTFORUM), contrary to your claim that "editors with much less investment in the subject, disagree." --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I could go on, but you prove my point far more eloquently than I could, and you plainly have much more energy to do so. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some of the most relevant sources have been removed from this article recently (see this edit). I'm referring to essays such as the ones from The Gospel Coalition, The Natural Historian, Reasons to Believe, and BioLogos. All of these are essays about the film -- granted, not traditional movie reviews, but analyses of the content of the film -- which were written by Christians who believe God created the world and yet have significant disagreements with the film: "some of their arguments for a young earth appeal to selective, misleading, and/or exaggerated data"; "Is Genesis History? (IGH) portrays paleontology (and the other disciplines it highlights) extremely inaccurately"; "Astronomy is my area of expertise, and I quickly recognized the flaws in the story being told"; "So what did we see in this film? It would take a book to flesh out all the false assertions made ...". Without sources such as these, I don't think the article is complete, nor can it be fairly judged here without considering them. The nominator wrote above, "So we have a creationist film where the only sources that might be considered reliable are creationists, and they are not intellectually independent because of the walled garden effect. A Venn diagram of the people involved in the movie and the groups that sponsored it, also includes people in the creationist organisations that commented on the movie. Nobody outside the bubble appears to have taken any notice of it." But I am not sure that the nom has taken into consideration the fact that other creationists disagreed with the film and criticized it. Nor does the nom appear to give the film's relative box office success (see IndieWire) any credit towards notability. If the question were "Should the film Is Genesis History? be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia?", I would answer "No", but that's not the question we are here to address. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way are they "relevant"? If this article is intended to meet WP:NFILM then they are meaningless. If it's WP:FRINGE, they also fail, as noted above. The sources you identify are not reliable for discussion of film, and not independent for discussion of creationist propaganda. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is Biologos not acceptable to cite as a film review? They 100% accept the scientific consensus on evolution and long ages, and as I noted, their president, Francis Collins led the Human Genome Project and was appointed by Obama as the NIH director (after founding Biologos). If that organization is inappropriate to cite, then I don't know what is. Besides, as several editors have pointed out here and the article's talk page, there's nothing inappropriate with citing these reviews. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide RS that discuss the Biologos blogs as high quality movie reviews, generally speaking. I don't think you will be able to. They are Christian blogs, blogging about Christian subjects. Is this a movie, or is this some creationist thing?  You cannot have it both ways.Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God's creation." I think that says everything we need to know: they have a dog in the fight. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Three scientists who are faculty at secular universities and who 100% accept evolution and long ages wrote the review, and they critique the movie on scientific grounds. Yet you call it a "blog." And this is the same organization formerly run by the head of the Human Genome Project before he was appointed NIH Director. They are Christian, but 100% accept evolution, and represent a large proportion of Americans. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Three people writing in an unreliable source remains an unreliable source. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Biologos is about as reliable as you can get, considering who its contributors and endorsers are (academics at secular universities), and considering its 100% acceptance of evolution. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * delete I nominated this for deletion the first time and still see this page as propaganda for a propaganda film.  Rhododendrites really nailed the key issue in a recent talk page discussion here when they wrote: The keep !voters kept saying that it should be kept because it's a movie and should be treated as a movie rather than consider the fringe subject matter. Then we kept it on the basis that it should be treated like a film, despite the fact that there wasn't significant in-depth coverage of the film itself (only some announcements/press releases/buzz published in local news sources). Now we have an article about a movie that we're supposed to treat like a movie, but we cite sources that are not known as reliable sources for film criticism. Folks are trying to have it both ways - we cannot keep a documentary on the basis that "it is a movie" when there are not multiple independent, secondary sources about it. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. This film has received sufficient coverage in independent and reliable sources. It satisfies WP:NFILM. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point User:JosephusOfJerusalem, you definitely need to identify those "independent and reliable sources" and say why they are indy and RS. Lots of us have looked for a long time, and all there is, are in-bubble blogs.  We need normal indy RS -- like this; that is an independent, reliable source about a movie. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW does not apply after multiple delete !votes. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On his defense, keeping the article should be obvious, considering that literally nothing has changed after the first AfD, which passed overwhealmingly with even atheists and anti-YECers supporting keeping the article, other than that a single editor jumped in and unilaterally decided to delete half the page's content before nominating it for AfD. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, we do have reliable and independent sources of the movie, as I've mentioned above numerous times. It's irrelevent that the NYT didn't write a review of the movie, and as E.M.Gregory pointed out below, a movie doesn't even need reviews to pass WP:NFILM. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, one important thing has changed: people have started asserting that the article should be treated like a movie, not like a fringe subject, and the sources don't support treating it like a movie. So the having the cake and eating it is new. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * False -- many editors (a majority, actually) argued in the first AfD for treating the article as a movie under NFILM rather than FRIND, and they used the sources to support this. This is unchanged. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore: is it just a coincidence that over half the page content was removed before being nominated for the purpose of AFD with the nom claiming there's not enough coverage to be kept? There are enough independent sources to keep the article, and the non-independent reviews can be attributed to those who wrote them. I don't believe any of this creationism stuff, but I don't see any obvious pov-pushing or poor editing. Previous AFD isn't even that old. Lorstaking (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have cause and effect reversed. I reviewed the sourcing in the article. It was problematic: flattering reviews by creationist organisations are not really acceptable in Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. As a result of my fruitless search for any mainstream coverage of this movie, I nominated it for deletion. Search the usual critic aggregators. No movie critics have written about this movie, so it's not WP:NFILM, it falls under WP:NFRINGE, and it fails there, too, because nobody other than partisans in the creationist culture war have commented. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep in my view it does pass WP:GNG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * CommentWhere are the reliable independant sources that have significant coverage of the topic? Name one.2001:A61:4E6:C500:3115:48CF:357:2E52 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out several times above, there are many reliable and independent sources on the movie -- many other WP movie articles of independent films would love to have the same amount of coverage. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I'll admit that I haven't gone through every single source in every single version of the article. But establishing notability really is not so hard that I should have to do that.  It is the responsibility of the "keep" !voters here to link us to just three reliable sources (preferably from more than a regional level) that are independent of the subject but specifically about it.  Citing (or worse, just mentioning) a bunch of sources that only barely mention the subject, or that are only sorta not related if you don't look directly at it, or are only almost reliable is a tactic used to obfuscate a lack of notability (I'll assume it's accidental and not intentional).  A quarter-sentence mention in an article in a broader trend doesn't work.  Creationist sites do not work.  Blogs masquerading as newspapers do not work.  A blurb in a podunk newspaper only announcing that "i'z gun'be sho'n at da the'dur nex'ta Unc'a-Daddy Jim-Bob's Gunz-n-Fry'd Chik'n" does not work.  Saying that there are sources out there while expecting us to find them does not work.  I'm even going to ignore the deletion argument that an article should meet either NFILM or NFRINGE and can't just cherry pick to ride some weird middle ground -- the "keep" !voters simply are not presenting any good reason to keep the article and if they were !voting "keep" in both full knowledge and honesty they should be able to present just three sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the result of the previous AfD. Nothing about the article has substantially changed (with a large caveat, discussed below) since that time, and the arguments for deletion here are substantially the same as the ones raised previously. The nominator asserts that "recent discussions on Talk have undermined" the significant coverage argument, but examining the article's talk page does not support that assertion. The sourcing discussions there include a brief discussion of using Patheos as a source (the decision was to leave it in); a discussion of what, if anything, to use from Rotten Tomatoes (the decision was to exclude all of it); a discussion about the reliability/acceptability/usefulness of a sarcastic throwaway line from the Orlando Sentinel (which was kept); a discussion of which quote to use from the BioLogos Foundation review (during which exactly zero editors objected to it as a source and editors on both sides ended with a cordial acknowledgement of productive collaborative editing – an absolute unicorn sighting on this article). That was up until the nominator's edit of May 23 which unilaterally removed a large chunk of the Reception section. And I feel it necessary to note that these changes removed ALL of the positive reviews of the film, including the ones from Patheos which were previously, albeit briefly, discussed on the talk page. The rest of the reviews – bizarrely excepting the line from the Orlando Sentinel – were only removed by the nominator two days later, after I pointed out in the ensuing discussion that the logic used to remove the first set of reviews would also necessitate removal of the second set, which were all critical of the film. To be clear, I was not arguing for the removal of either, only the consistent application of the nominator's rationale by the nominator. The aforementioned ensuing discussion shows that the removal of these sources as unreliable was contested, and spawned an RfC that, at the time of this writing, remains open. So the assertion that "recent discussions on Talk have undermined" the removed sources may be true in the nominator's mind, but it is not supported by any formal community consensus, and is in fact, contradicted by a few of the discussions I just cited.
 * Further, the nominator says, "So the next question is, does it pass WP:GNG? GNG also includes the independence clause: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Apart from Patheos bloggers, the only actual coverage of this movie is from creationist groups like AiG (some of whose people were in the film)." This is an oversimplification at best. First, there has been disagreement on the talk page about the definition of "independence of the subject". In this case, does that mean independence from the film or independence from its subject? The nominator glosses over this distinction by citing Answers in Genesis (AiG), who both sides have acknowledged have an employee interviewed in the film. However, the removed sources also include Adventist Review, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, the Associates for Biblical Research, and the Geoscience Research Institute. All of those would be independent of the film, but not independent of its subject matter, as they are on record as in agreement with the general tenets of Young Earth creationism. (And I say general tenets, because YEC is not a homogeneous doctrinal position.) After noting that latter interpretation of "independent" would also exclude committed anti-YEC Christian sources, reviews by blogger Joel Edmund Anderson, Reason to Believe, The Gospel Coalition, and the BioLogos Foundation were also removed; remember, some of these were discussed without objection in previous talk page discussions. This says nothing of sourcing from WND, World, and Newsmax, which although they are Christian and/or conservative sources, take no official position on YEC that I am aware of. It is while the current version of the article omits all of these references, and while an active RfC about their acceptability is ongoing, that this (second) AfD was created, using as a basis that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources, an argument that the community already rejected in substance last September. For these reasons, I believe the timing of this AfD is imprudent at best, and disruptive at worst. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of this is about the parallel discussion of the removed material, so I'll pass that by as irrelevant to the AfD and just concentrate on the sources (which should be considered regardless of whether or not they're currently cited). You've listed several organizations/publications that you've indeed regarded as not independent of the subject matter. I would add that they are also not good sources for film criticism, being advocacy organizations known for advocacy and particular issues, and not film criticism. Then there are those that are not independent... but those are WorldNewsDaily, Newsmax, and World. WND and Newsmax are scarcely reliable sources for anything let alone creationist subjects. I'm less familiar with World, but the article on the film repeats much of the same material from the press tour and ends with "an engrossing primer on why we can feel confident believing the Bible’s account of creation", which doesn't exactly instill confidence in its reliability. Any actual reviews from sources that aren't looking to feel confident believing the Bible's account of creation? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Most of this is about the parallel discussion of the removed material, so I'll pass that by as irrelevant to the AfD". Except the acceptability of a large number of sources isn't irrelevant to the AfD when the stated rationale for the AfD is a lack of acceptable sources. I (and others) contend that the definition of "independent" in policy should be understood as "independent from the film", and not, as still others have contended, "independent from the film's subject matter". Further, I am contending that the issue of "reliable sources" depends on the answer to "reliable for what?" I don't see that any of the sources were being used inconsistent with their inherent reliability. (That is, sources with a pro-YEC bias were properly identified and used to cite the reaction to the film from that perspective. They were not used to cite something like, "Man and dinosaurs co-existed", which would obviously be an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and require extraordinary sourcing. On the other side, the anti-YEC, neutral Christian, and politically conservative sources were also properly identified and used to cite similar passages.) If the community agrees with these interpretations, then there are many more sources that should be considered relative to the film's notability than are represented in the current version of the article (i.e. those that were purged on and subsequent to May 23). The fact is, the movie generated a lot of commentary from a variety of viewpoints – one might say an outsized amount, given its budget and limited screen time – and that, in my opinion, makes it notable. And I have just explained, again, why I believe that opinion is consistent with policy. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so you are saying it fails WP:NMOVIE but passes GNG because although all writeups that exceed the standard of a press release are Christian conservative sources, not all of these are actively creationist, yes? And I get that. But I still find that problematic given the political machinations of the religious right, trying to get creationism taught as fact in public schools. The absence of any reality-based commentary at all is very worrying. We have articles on other fringe propaganda films which I think are fine, because they have reality-based commentary, but here there is absolutely nothing outside the bubble other than blogs. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You may find my assertions problematic because of "the political machinations of the religious right". I find your assertion that "all writeups that exceed the standard of a press release are Christian conservative sources", combined with your subsequent assertion that this represents an "absence of any reality-based commentary at all" equally troubling, implying – as it does – that no Christian or conservative sources qualify as "reality-based". That comes, I'm sure, from our respective biases. That's why the question was put to the wider community. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reality-based is the correct term. Creationists prefer to describe the reality-based community as "evolutionists", as if they are to equal and opposing religious dogmas, but evolution by natural selection is a conclusion from observed fact. Virtually all conservative sources in the US right now have a dog in this fight, due to the pervasive influence of the religious right. They frame it as a creation-evolution debate, just as they frame climate change denialism as a debate, but the "debate" is political not scientific and is sustained exclusively by well-funded ideologues who reject scientific conclusions because of their implications for personal belief and / or wealth. Collier, Martin and Nassau Counties have just tried to alter textbooks, once again to place creationism on a par with science. Christian conservatives typically support this regardless of their belief in literal creation because they do not accept that the First Amendment genuinely forbids state-sponsored religious indoctrination. They are content to support making the curriculum more Jesus-y even if it's the "wrong" flavour of evangelical Christianity. It's a form of orthodoxy which is based on the implicit assumption that creationism is a valid view of the origin of life, and they only differ on whether God did it in six literal days or over a longer period. That, in their minds, is the only actual debate, whereas for the reality-based community there is no place for the supernatural, no gap in the evidence that would require a supernatural explanation. It's religoous Truth&trade; versus empirical fact. And the two are not equal. I'm confident that Not everyone in the Arizona state house is a creationist, but they sure as hell don't like evolution. It's hatred of evolution, not support for creationism, that makes these sources partisan and unreliable. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I do have to point out here that the majority of Christians outside of American (or American-style) Conservative Evangelicals accept evolution. This isn't even a "religion vs science" deal, it's literally just one political party's hijacking of religiously-themed pseudoscience to ensure votes.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of assumptions and projections you are using to arrive at your conclusion. Painting all, or even nearly all, US Christians and conservatives with this broad brush so that you can rhetorically remove them from the ranks of the "reality-based community" is a leap that I don't believe the WP community as a whole is willing to make, and I'm betting a fair number of them would be offended by. For someone who has spent more than a few words lecturing 1990'sguy about how his biases might impact his ability to impartially consider the correctness of his decisions, might I suggest that your comments here indicate that a bit of introspection on your own worldview might also be prudent, and for the same reasons? I think everyone involved in this debate understands the accepted perspective on YEC and its adherents, but to then do a bunch of hand-waving about money and political power to project that same perspective onto all US Christians and conservatives requires a healthy does of original research and synthesis that I think the average Wikipedian would be uncomfortable with. If this is your logic for discounting AiG, Newsmax, and everything in between, then I don't think it is very persuasive. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NFILM with sourcing by WP:RS, non-creation science related publications like The Christian Post. We have a great many articles about documentary films and books that make fraudulent and fringe claims, the only unusual thing here is the intensity of the effort to delete this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Christian Post coverage is not a review. It has nothing resembling criticism. It barely talks about the film itself in the publication's voice. It is an exercise in giving a flexible platform to the filmmaker to say whatever promotional whatnot he wants to about the film, with no attempt at anything resembling criticism/analysis. It may not actively promote YEC like, say, Answers in Genesis, but it provides a free, uncritical platform to those that do, winding up with untouched (nevermind unchallenged) statements like "Tackett sad in an interview with The Christian Post last month that the goal of the documentary is to have people walk away from the experience knowing that science supports God's Word." That's not something you'll find in real film reviews, and perhaps one reason why there isn't any. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * straw man argument, reviews are not required. Feature stories and coverage of the business aspects (screenings, attendence, gross,) can meet NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This claim is factually incorrect. NFILM lists a number of criteria:widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics - not met. historically notable, as evidenced by [...] [tests] at least five years after the film's initial release. Not met, film is only 1 year old featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Not met. Received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Not met. This is Oscars, basically. selected for preservation in a national archive. Not met. "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.. Not met. NFILM notes "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." That encompasses pretty much every source presented, with the exception of a couple of pieces by creationist think-tanks. Whether or not this passes GNG, it clearly and unambiguously fails NFILM. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're referring specifically to WP:NFO, which lists additional criteria for movies that don't meet WP:NFSOURCES. This movie does meet the latter with its many reliable and independent sources, so the former is irrelevant. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting the WP:FORUMSHOP aspect of this AfD, RfC, 2ndAfD pattern.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that the movie itself was significant enough to warrant a page of its own, regardless of where you stand on the evolution creation debate. If the wording is biased in favor of creationism, then that can be improved. I do not see a reason why this should be deleted? Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a series of tests to establish whether that is true, they are set out in WP:NMOVIE. This film fails all of them. Guy (Help!) 07:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. "Weak" because organisations like the Christian Post share the ideology of the film, but are otherwise independent: so they could be used for statements like "[film] was made in [year] by [director] and released by [studio]. It included interviews with [interviewees]." Obviously, sources which endorse creationism cannot be used for any substantive analysis of this topic. Therefore, we would have something in the nature of a WP:PERMASTUB. That said, I'm not convinced that such a stub would satisfy NPOV; for this subject to have a neutral article, it must be described for what it is (pseudoscience) and therefore it must have substantive coverage in sources that recognize creationism as pseudoscience. I do not see sufficient such coverage at present, so I believe it should be deleted. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * false premise. The Christian Post does not support and is fully independent of Creation science.  I know this is arcane, but Creation science is a minor, fringe, subset of Christian fundamentalism.  Vanamonde, and, indeed, a number of editors above, conflate creationism with creation science, and are led to incorrectly dismiss WP:RS media in the false belief that, "organisations like the Christian Post share the ideology of the film."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm uninterested in the terminology you use to describe them. An organisation whose website includes, in the "about us" section, the following statement, is completely unreliable for commentary on the historical nature of genesis. "We affirm the [...] truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms..." Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But even theistic evolutionists (who believe the scientific consensus on evolution 100%) use wording like that. Biologos, which is supported by many mainstream scientists who believe in God and was led by Francis Collins, has a similar statement. As another example, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed by many people who believed in evolution at least in some form. Simply saying they hold to a high view of the Bible doesn't say anything about the Christian Post's stance (if any at all, which I doubt) on evolution.
 * Even without the Christian Post, you're ignoring the other sources, such as the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Business Insider, and others. No need to focus unduly on the Christian Post, even though it's an entirely appropriate/independent source. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's off the mark. The Biologos statement says nothing about the literal truth of the bible; it describes it as the authoritative word of god, which is subtly different. The Chicago Statement is quite irrelevant; it's not a publication, and the reliability of folks who signed it would depend on what they are published in. The business insider piece is quite brief. The ADG source I do not have access to, and am unable to evaluate. Vanamonde (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The point on Biologos and the Chicago statement is that saying you believe the "truth and authority" and the "inerrency" of the Bible means nothing in terms of your position on evolution.
 * The Business Insider article establishes the movie's wider cultural relevance, and raw word count isn't so important as compared to why they are writing about it. The ADG source is the newspaper of record of Arkansas. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your response to any counter to your views is simply to restate them, so this is a futile discussion. This has all been addressed. Your comment amounts to "but I still think X". Yes, I am sure you do. And others still disagree. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO it would be a mistake to focus on the narrow question of explicit creationism anyway. This film can't be viewed in isolation from the decades long campaign by religious right to supplant evolution in the public school science curriculum. However, the Biologos pieces are blog posts anyway so not RS for establishing notability. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends who's blogging, of course. A notable scientist who writes a film review on a blog can be cited. Actually, JzG|Guy, it would be kind of fabulous if you could persuade one or two notable evolutionary biologists to publish reviews of this film.  It's a big ask (it takes far more time to write a scholarly review of a bad book or documentary film than of a good one,) but it would be a good thing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a thing the religious right has done, but with respect to such propaganda I'd honestly prefer a neutral article over no article at all. All I'm saying at the moment is that the Christian Post cannot be a reliable source for a description of the content of this film, and so we have a film that is not covered sufficiently in reliable independent sources. Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree. We have an article on the most morally reprehensible movie of recent decades, Vaxxed, based on widespread reliable coverage. I've worked to keep it up to scratch. I just wish someone outside the bubble would write about it. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources because JzG|Guy's comment might give the impression that no one "outside the bubble" has written about this film, I want to underline that he presumably refers to the fact that no one outside the bubble has written a formal review,or taken the time to deconstruct the film into the series of false assertions, straw man arguments, and misinterpretation of evidence that I take it to be. Just to be clear, we do have adequate sourcing in the mainstream press to keep this film as a film, but it is stuff like Variety (magazine) reporting that the one day nationwide special showing took in $2.7 million; Newsmax ranking it #12 among on a list of the "Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time;"  Business Insider discussing it in an article about "How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump"; and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette running a sweet, home-town-boy-makes-film feature story, Daughter's queries prompted Genesis film.  Even without formal reviews in mainstream media, mainstream sources already on the page satisfy WP:NFP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For all of the boldtext and accusations of bludgeoning (which is ironic for a couple reasons, not the least of which is you have the same number of edits to this page that I do), you're still just repeating the assertion that 1990sguy has been repeating -- that the copious press releases, brief mentions, terrible sources, local announcements, advocacy groups, etc. are actually stellar sources such that it doesn't matter if any of them actually review the film or provide any in-depth coverage of the film itself that doesn't come directly from the filmmaker's mouth. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Variety: "Box Office: Fathom Events Sees Soaring 2017 Performance (EXCLUSIVE)". So, a namecheck ina press release. And that is absolutely representative. There are no mainstream sources about the movie. Per WP:GNG, we require non-trivial coverage in reliable sources with intellectual independence from the subject. As in: not press releases, not namechecks, not interviews promoting the thing. That it fails WP:NFILM is beyond question, so we are into WP:NFRINGE, which mandates reality-based sources. You could make most of this argument go away by citing a single non-trivial article in a mainstream source that is (a) about the film and (b) not obviously based on a press release. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * REname -- Is Genesis History? (film). This is a feature length film putting forward a creationist view that many people consider pseudo-science.  The young-earth creationist view exists and this film seems to have had a significant run.  Personally, I believe that there was a creator, but not the young earth view of this.  In my view, the amount of heat that this discussion is generating suggests that we should be keeping it.  Nevertheless, the article currently has an ATTACK fell about it, not the required NPOV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Endorse this excellent suggestion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * keep article obviously meets WP:NFILM, and sources like the Arkansas Democrat, Christian Post, and Business Insider are sufficiently independent to cite. Reviews like Biologos also give a good mainstream rebuttal to the movie, which IMO is trash. The WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:TENDENTIOUS aspects with the afd and rfc is obvious, and I think the closing admin should take action on this. desmay (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Desmay - Biologos is lovely, and it is also very specifically Christian - see its About us page - and a very specific form of Christianity at that. What is mainstream is way broader than that. And again, the elephant in the room here is that non-Christian media paid pretty much no attention to this movie. Just a few crickets.
 * That is the actual mainstream view of this movie. Ignoring this, is exactly the problem with most of the "keep" votes here.
 * Here let me copy a bit of it:
 * "What We Believe 1) We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.... 11) We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church."
 * Again it is great that Christians had lovely discussion about it on that website among themselves. The world is much bigger than that and looking at NFILM, this fails by miles. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article clearly meets WP:NFILM. Excellent and strong sourcing from reliable sources.Knox490 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sections of NFILM does it meet? I cannot find a single one. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; the Christian Post coverage in particular is substantial and independent. There's no requirement for "mainstream film reviews" to keep an article on a film.  Regarding the content disputes, I think the current version is a bit too sparse, but the Newsmax "Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time" link is clickbait that we should avoided mentioning. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it not matter that the piece you've just linked is basically a compilation of press release material (see e.g. here, with plenty of word-for-word quotes copied in). Christian Post may be a notch above sources like WND/Newsmax/AiG/the plethora of other terrible sources being repeatedly mentioned as supporting notability, but it nonetheless unabashedly does uncritical (in the sense of film criticism -- not that it needs to be negative) promotional work for creationist filmmakers, authors, etc. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The distinction between the movie's popularity and the fringeness of the content in the movie are two separate things. Disambiguating it would help like at least one editor above mentioned with "film". This movie was released last year in 2017 so it looks like it can still take some time before people dismiss it. Looking at the recent full version before this article was stripped to bare bones looks reasonably sourced. To me it looks like a similar vein as The_Red_Pill, Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed or I would say even Forks_Over_Knives.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The amount of independent WP:RS citing the reviews of the film,[www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/os-movie-musings-is-genesis-history-0216-story.html] confirms that the subject meets GNG. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the film has enough rs coverage (does not have to be reviews) and needs to be made neutral which it is not at present and protected from the agenda pushers on both sides of the subject, also plenty of edit warring going on, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so how do we make it neutral? There are precisely zero reviews by film reviewers, only by creationists. In fact there are zero sources other than conservative Christian sites associated with the promotion of creationism as "science". What mainstream sources should we use? You imply there are plenty, yet diligent searches on both sides have found none. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 2 June 2018 (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.