Deletion of Is Genesis History?

Comment: This article has plenty of good independent sources. In addition to the two sources that Jytdog considers good, there is Box Office Mojo, Religion News Service, ''AMFM Magazine'', ''World (magazine)|World'', ''WorldNetDaily'', ''The Christian Post'', and the ''Christian Examiner (California)|Christian Examiner''. While some of these sources are run by Christians, several of them are secular. All of them are notable publications. All of these are acceptable sources -- just because a publication's editorial stance may be slanted in favor of this movie does not mean the source should be disqualified. Most of the other references are reviews from notable organizations/publications: The Gospel Coalition, The BioLogos Foundation, AiG, ICR, and CMI. You can't say that this movie hasn't been noticed or has not received much coverage. Of course, many (but definitely not all, not even close) sources have some connections to Christianity, but that's expected because this movie is intended for a Christian audience. This movie was released in more theaters, has a higher box office (even if you only count the BOM source with hasn't been updated since the first day of release), and received more coverage from notable sources than quite a few movies that have Wikipedia articles, even those that survived an AfD. This movie definitely meets , and if there are any problems with the article, fix the article rather than deleting it per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RUBBISH)

Comment: While no reason to reject the strong notability, article in its present form seems informative and encyclopedic. Also agree with {{ping|E.M.Gregory}} about  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM||WP:GNG)

Comment: Because sourcing passes  and .  Discussion of whether the thesis of the film it is or is not supported by evidence is not pertinent to the gauging WP:NOTABILITY of a film as a film. ''Note'' tha tthis is not a page about a theory, it is a page about a movie
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM||WP:GNG)

Comment: this is an article about a ''movie'', and only its notability should decide whether it should stay or go, and it's certainly more than an unknown-to-the-public-or-media 12minute 8mm short shot in grandma's backyard. Yet even by (those in) the discussion here I see already a potential for it ''becoming'' the full-fledged  concerns that a few have voiced here. So my 'keep' opinion depends on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This is an independent film -- so this movie does have small budget and was not produced by a notable company. Of course we're not going to have a New York Times story on the movie. However, the coverage that we did get -- Box Office Mojo, Religion News Service, ''AMFM Magazine'', ''World (magazine)|World'', ''WorldNetDaily'', ''The Christian Post'', and the ''Christian Examiner (California)|Christian Examiner'', etc., is a lot for a movie like it and it meets  either way
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Seems like a problem for . We need coverage {{tq|by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers}}. The fact that it is a film promoting a fringe theory and not an article about the theory itself doesn't really change anything. Anyone arguing to keep should really be pointing to mainstream sources not known as advocates of creation science. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: Let's look at |the relevant guideline: "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" (emphasis is in the original). As noted in previous votes the film is covered inside the creationist universe. But the film seems to have been basically ignored in the wider world. There certainly isn't ''extensive'' coverage as required by the guideline. Whether the film is good or bad science, or good/bad theology, is not the point here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: That this '''IS''' an article that falls under / for the reasons I laid out in response to your first comment that the above note is replying to without replying to. (As an aside, outdenting and boldtexting a "note" to present your opinion about applicable policies as though objective fact to sway future !voters (whether intentional or not) is not ideal). &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:PSCI||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: this is not about fringe theories and fringe related items are irrelevant here. This is an article about a documentary film, regardless of the subject, and therefore it is governed by  for its notability guidelines. It quite handily passes those guidelines. If there is any disagreement with this I'd suggest taking that to the Film Wikiproject page and getting the guidelines changes, but as it stands it passes and therefore should stay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTFILM)

Comment: I'm sympathetic to the nominator's argument and have considered nominating this myself several times, what with the tedious back-and-forth that's been needed to keep it from becoming a creationist . However, I don't think  applies here, since this is not an article about a fringe theory, it's an article ''about a film'' about a fringe theory. Otherwise the fringe theory in question is creationism, which is clearly notable (in fact it's the first example of a notable fringe theory given in ). So I don't see a reason to exclude notable creationist periodicals – they are fringe, yes, but they are independent of the ''film'' and reliable sources as far as the world of fundamentalist kookery is concerned. That being the case, I think {{u|1990'sguy}} has shown that there is enough coverage for the film to be considered notable. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NFRINGE||WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: per the film itself meeting . As some of the crappiest and most unbelievable films are found notable, we do not judge film content, which can be discussed and sourced elsewhere
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NF)