Deletion of Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination)

Comment: there's enough coverage to meet ; the https://www.christianpost.com/news/is-genesis-history-film-on-young-earth-creationism-makes-history-with-continued-success-181374/ 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: article obviously meets , 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  and  aspects with the afd and rfc is obvious, and I think the closing admin should take action on this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM||WP:FORUMSHOP||WP:TENDENTIOUS)

Comment: as the article clearly meets . Excellent and strong sourcing from reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM)

Comment: meets  with sourcing by , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM||WP:RS)

Comment: The amount of independent  citing the reviews of the film,https://www.newsmax.com/bestlists/conservative-documentaries-best-all-time/2018/04/04/id/852462/www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/os-movie-musings-is-genesis-history-0216-story.html confirms that the subject meets GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 /. 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:PSCI||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: This film has received sufficient coverage in |independent and |reliable sources. It satisfies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:RS||WP:NFILM)

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 . 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  guidelines for sources. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRIND||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: This article clearly meets , 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 (magazine)|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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NFILM||WP:BIASEDSOURCES)