Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Rhododendrites, 21:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:FRIND||WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)