"|Nefariousski: 
|WP:WTA#Myth and Legend 
|(relevent sections) ""Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception...be consistent; referring to ""Christian beliefs"" and ""Hindu myths"" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally."" Being that the usage of ""Creation Myth"" in articles (and their titles) about creation myths is near unanimous across different belief systems changing this convention for Judeo-Christian related articles violates the word and spirit of WP:WTA. A sample of the other articles are as follows: 
|Chinese creation myth 
|Sumerian creation myth 
|Ancient Egyptian creation myths 
|Pelasgian creation myth 
|Tongan creation myth 
|Mesoamerican creation myths 
|Creation Myth 
|Keeping in mind that this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since WP:WTA makes a specific example for uniform usage and the usage of ""Creation Myth"" is clearly the dominant usage for Religious and Supernatural cosmogenical articles. 
|*WP:RNPOV 
|Usage of ""Creation Myth"" is clearly in line with this policy. The policy states ""Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources."" The latter three almost unanimously use the term ""Creation Myth"" while the first describes it as a historical fact (which we cannot due for a myriad of reasons that I'm sure everyone reading this understands). 
|At best if any reliable sources can be found that are critical of usage of the term ""Creation Myth"" (not myth as a stand alone since the Electoral College can not be classified as a College any more than definitions of myth, particularly the informal/colloquial definitions can be applied to the term ""Creation Myth"") a section disucssing this criticism should be added to the article and the main Creation Myth article but shouldn't contradict usage of the term per ""Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction."" 
|Per the section that states ""Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader."" editors of this article have, in good faith, created a FAQ, cited formal definitions, wikilinked to the main Creation myth article (which also has a detailed formal definition) and added a footnote to the the term ""Creation Myth"" to further clarify formal usage. All of which meet and possibly exceed the due diligence required to ensure that the formal meaning is understood. 
|*WP:UCN 
|Usage of ""Creation Myth"" in the title has been furthermore contested after the first article RM, another RM was started about a week later to remove the term from the title, that RM also was declined and closed (albeit with some arguement and complaint regarding it possibly being closed too soon). UCN tells us ""Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article"", considering the vast majority of cited sources including archaelogical, scientific, historical and other scholarly/academic writings use the term ""Creation Myth"" as opposed to other colloquial variants the title meets UCN. 
|Furthermore the usage of ""Creation Myth"" abounds in reliable sources doing a quick google search shows that it's use clearly meets the ""common usage"" section of UCN ""Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name"" 
UCN also tells us ""Where articles have descriptive titles, they are neutrally worded. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject. "" alternatives such as ""Story"" or ""account"" imply value judgements regarding veracity one way or the other (Story commonly being defined as fiction, account commonly being used in factual / historical context). Additionally changing the name causes a loss of precision (also discussed in UCN) since ""Creation Myth"" is the formally defined academic term and as such doesn't allow for any ambiguity (only one definition) whereas other alternatives do. 
|Some editors have brought up di