Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History? (2nd nomination)
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 #One_who_demands_that_others_find_sources_for_his/her_own_statements|intentional).  A http://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/documentaries-box-office-2017-1201910072/ 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
— User:Ian, 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BURDEN||WP:CITEKILL||WP:AGF||WP:TEND||WP:BURDEN (Wikipedia:Verifiability)