Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is a film promoting Young Earth creationism, which we cover, with respect to science, as a fringe theory. The question here is, do we apply the notability standards for fringe theories (which require sources independent from those associated with the theory), or for other subjects like films (which just require reliably sourced coverage independent from the subject itself, i.e., the film)? The 7 "delete" opinions express the first view, and the 22 "keep" opinions either express the second view or propose that the article should be kept because it did receive coverage from non-religious or non-creationist sources. The question of which notability standards to apply is one to which policy provides no clear-cut answer, and reasonable arguments can be made for both, so as closer I can't decide this by fiat. This leaves us, given the headcount, with a rough consensus for keeping the article (or at the worst, with no consensus for deleting.)  Sandstein  13:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Is Genesis History?

Is Genesis History? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFRINGE. All sources here but two are in-bubble creationist, or WP:SPS (even the facebook page for the movie, for pete's sake). With respect to sources that pass WP:FRIND, there are two. One is a story in the Little Rock Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper (I can send that to anybody who wants it; it is paywalled). The hook for that piece is that the movie was made by a "Little Rock native" so this is just local coverage. The other independent source is a passing mention in an Orlando column rounding up movie events. The article as it stands is WP:COATRACK and violates the WP:PSCI policy. This movie did not get nearly as much press as say Vaxxed which had enough independent refs, that we can have an article on it without promoting its pseudoscience. Not in this case. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to No ... I dunno. Probably delete. The title makes looking for sources near impossible. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is remarkable that there is not one ref here that says "this movie is unrelenting pseudoscience". Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment See Betteridge's law of headlines (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is irrelevant if the answer is "no." The movie has received a lot of coverage from multiple independent sources, as I showed below. That's all that matters. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep: 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, WorldNetDaily, The Christian Post, and the 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 WP:GNG, and if there are any problems with the article, fix the article rather than deleting it per WP:RUBBISH. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As noted in the nomination, these are all in-bubble refs. They are in the pseudoscience creationist bubble, and are not independent of it. There are insufficient independent sources per WP:FRIND to have an article here. The movie advocates psedudoscience, and is so marginal that we don't have enough actually independent sources to talk about it neutrally. The Orlando column gave half a thought to noting the baloney ("Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding “NO!”"), but that is the only one. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel writer had clearly not seen the film, therefore this is 'blurb' rather than review. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So Box Office Mojo, Religion News Service and AMFM Magazine are "in-bubble refs"? These are secular sources. Religion News Service covers religious topics, but it is by no means religious -- read its article. These sources clearly meet WP:FRIND. Apparently, your definition of meeting it is having sources that attack the movie. These sources definitely meet it and most of them don't -- so what? Also, where's your evidence that The Christian Post and the Christian Examiner support the movie? Having the word "Christian" does not cut it, nor does writing an article on the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to be aware that the RSN ref is a press release and doesn't count toward notability regardless. You are also not addressing the deletion rationale, which is that there are no independent-of-creationism sources that discuss the movie itself. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

So BoxOffice Mojo and AMFM magazine are not independent? What about the Business Insider article that ‎Boeldieu just found? Or the Orlando Sentinel? Even for the sources run by Christians, they are acceptable and can be considered independent per Joe Roe's comment below. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional note here - you mentioned "WP:RUBBISH" in your !vote. The nomination has nothing to do with RUBBISH. This page violates PSCI and there are no sources with which to correct that. It fails NFRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No it does not -- since this discussion, several more reliable sources have been found that affirm that this article is notable enough to be kept. What you're effectively saying is that any movie that promotes pseudoscience is inherently unworthy of a Wikipedia article. I will only take your argument seriously once you nominate The Principle and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for deletion. Many more independent sources, in addition to the many that already were there, have been found. Add the sources, rather than delete the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeating this accusation doesn't make it any more true. Go look at the article for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Look at the sources. Note how they are not all either advocates for creationism and brief mentions that don't discuss the content of the film. Note how it contains in depth coverage from mainstream publications, not just "here's a film that's playing at the local cinema, here's what the press release says it's about." Continuing to try to dismiss policy-based arguments with WP:OTHERSTUFF is problematic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Jytdog posted this AfD to the fringe theories noticeboard at 20:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC). – Joe (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Deleting an article because we disagree with its ideological position sounds like I don't like it. This is not a reason for deletion. The release and reception section seem decently sourced, and includes opinions by relatively notable fringe writers such as Ken Ham. Given its nature as a low budget film, which barely made it to the box office, I am quite surprised it received so much coverage. I would not want to set the bar too high for independent films. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Dimadick the issue is not about liking, it is about WP:NFRINGE which implements the WP:PSCI policy. Do not misrepresent the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Deleteweak Keep I am not sure there is enough sourcing to establish notability, but there may be. But I do agree that not liking it is not a valid reason for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And indeed, not liking it, is not the deletion rationale. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I demonstrated that the article is well-sourced, at least enough to keep. Some of your comments seem to go against IDONTLIKEIT. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That you are confusing a description of a violation of the WP:PSCI policy, with "I don't like it", is very concerning, and I will be dealing with that elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• 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, WorldNetDaily, The Christian Post, and the Christian Examiner, etc., is a lot for a movie like it and it meets WP:GNG either way. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the notion of independent sources, which are the foundation of all the work we do here, with this being an independent movie. This is a documentary promoting pseudoscience, and fails NFRINGE, as noted in the nomination, due to the lack sources independent of the pseudoscience that the movie promotes. You have created a COATRACK. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No I am not. Many of the cited sources are clearly independent, and several more have been found since this discussion was opened. Of course it's not like the NYT or WaPo has stories on the movie, but the sources that do exist are clearly acceptable. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of reliability of WorldNetDaily

I cannot speak to the rest of the sources, but the assertion that WorldNetDaily (which is home to birthers, truthers, white supremacists, JFK conspiracists, etc., etc., etc.) is "clearly acceptable" contradicts a ton of discussions that have taken place on WP:RSN, so you might as well be arguing that we should use Weekly World News. Sources that so blatantly promote fringe theories are not reliable sources and are only to be used to the extent their views and opinions have been discussed by reliable sources. -Location (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC) If WND is not a good source, that fact changes nothing with this discussion. I already pointed out many other sources other than WND that are reliable/independent and which discuss this topic, and this evidence has already convinced at least two editors to change their position from "delete" to "keep." I will say for the record that I mentioned WND because its focus is mainly politics, rather than religious/YEC topics, and a political website commenting on this movie seems unusual. But whatever. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC) The [http://www.wnd.com/category/front-page/faith/ discussion of religious topics on WND] is not unusual. You can poo-poo the point with a dismissive "whatever", but what it changes is that your declarations that certain sources are "clearly reliable" - or that you know the first thing about the sources you are throwing around - should be met with a little skepticism. -Location (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Its Wikipedia article calls it "a politically conservative American news and opinion website and online news aggregator," so while I never denied that it discusses religious topics, it seems mainly like a political website. Also, my mention of the website above was the last time I mentioned it. as of the time I write, this comment is only 20% down the article and while I mentioned other, non-conservative/right-wing websites/organizations, I never mentioned WND or other websites similar to it. As I said, your quibble with WND means nothing to my case. If it should be thrown out of my argument, I'll happily do it (and I actually already did a while ago). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC) You inserted a link to a website that promulgates the worst of the "Sandy Hook was a false flag" conspiracy theorists, birthers, truthers, and white supremacists, called it "clearly reliable", wouldn't deign to retract it, then you condescendingly characterized my rejection of that stance as a "quibble". Well, at least you removed it from the article. Oh, wait... -Location (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Emotionalistic attacks don't foster rational discussion. WND is a notable source that focuses on politics and not religion, regardless of what you think of it personally -- and I do admit (and always have) that it has a POV. Its notability is why I included the source in the IGH article. You are blatantly going against WP:IDONTLIKEIT in your statements, and I will proceed to ignore them. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Regardless of what I think of WND, its reliability - or lack thereof - has been discussed many times in WP:RSN. And from what I've seen here, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply something you fling around when you encounter someone who disagrees with you. Ignore away. -Location (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete 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. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. 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 WP:COATRACK. However, I don't think WP:NFRINGE 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 WP:NFRINGE). 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 1990'sguy has shown that there is enough coverage for the film to be considered notable. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Joe Roe, thanks for your note. I am starting to write too much but no, this is not how we deal with works (books, films, etc) that advocate pseudoscience. If we did, WP would be full of COATRACK pages like one. Please think that through. If there aren't refs outside the bubble that discuss it, we cannot have an NPOV article about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is an interesting point that to my knowledge is not explicitly addressed in our policies and guidelines: if the parent fringe theory is notable, does this mean within-universe coverage is adequate to satisfy notability? The most relevant principle I can think of is that notability is not inherited, which is not policy but seems to be rather widely accepted by the editing community. Again, an interesting point that could be worth broader discussion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep if coverage can be expanded beyond bubble - Jytdog's repeated argument is a salient one: if there is plenty of coverage but it is all in fringe-y publications, then referencing the lot of those provides a false summary picture. This is because, whenever we provide a "reception" section, the reader normally can rely on that section giving a weighted mainstream view. This is not the case here - the thing has just received hardly any attention outside its bubble (and THAT negative). But the article still gives the appearance of reporting mainstream reaction. So in its current en-bubbled state, I'd say no good; and if that can't be remedied, delete (OR possibly heavily cut down the adulatory reception reporting). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Elmidae I did BEFORE before i nominated; I did not find discussion in actually independent sources, so the "if" is not going to happen based on refs that exist as of now. I found some blogs but too bloggy to cite even per PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there you go :/ Honestly it seems to come down to having a reception section that says "No-one who wasn't a dedicated creationist already took much notice of it", or treating it as non-notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It would violate WP:OR to say that. Again this is why we have WP:NFRINGE; if there are not sufficient sources discussing the pseudoscience of X, we don't have an artile about X, because we cannot provide sourced content that complies with NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Fringe material with no evidence of interest outside fringe circles. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC).
• Delete - Seems like a problem for WP:NFRINGE. We need coverage 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I realize WP has determined this topic fringe, but this seems like an echo-chamber discussion. I'm no fan of a lot of so-called fringe views, but many of them are clearly not fringe in terms of the numbers of participants. Look at chiropractic practice 50 years ago; or alternative medicine; or extraterrestrial science (last I heard Elon Musk was pushing this); or even homeschooling: people still call it fringe and it's growing 7x faster than any other educational form in America with literally millions of students today, passing up the number of kids in private schools in some states. Creationism is the same: how can something be fringe when it is believed by 38% of Americans? How can a film that is currently still the highest grossing short-release documentary of the year, with multiple months at the #1 Amazon Documentary DVD (not Christian, just all docs) be an irrelevant event? Even Business Insider commented on it observing:" It was the top-earning theatrical release that day (a Thursday), beating out "The Lego Batman Movie" and "Fifty Shades Darker" (both of which played on more than double the number of screens as "Is Genesis History?" did)." The fact that it was reviewed by major Christian news outlets such as WORLD magazine, Christian Post, and WND, as well as criticized by a lot of other Christians orgs makes it controversial even. (They can't even get along and agree on something - fancy that!) It clearly made a splash in someone's pond - even if they are whackos: there are a lot of them and they shouldn't be ignored just because we think they are whackos. If this were anything other than a creationist documentary, it would be a no-brainer that it would stay - and these discussions wouldn't even be happening. There are numerous small docs included on WP with equally sparse but real coverage. If we delete this, it will be because of bias and nothing else. That seems like a significant double-standard for a site that prides itself in trying to achieve a neutral point of view in writing, but ignores it in the editorial process. Boeldieu (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC) — Boeldieu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Re: how can something be fringe when it is believed by 38% of Americans?. Science is not decided by a 'popularity contest'. It is decided by what objectively fits the known evidence in terms of other known science. Science equally does not answer the 'big' questions that religion seeks to address. These theories are fringe science because they are rejected by nearly all professional scientists (including many religious ones) since they explain nothing and confuse poetic metaphor with science. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Nice catch, Boeldieu, in finding a Business Insider article that discusses the movie. More evidence that this article definitely meets WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

And, FWIW, the editor also found several Patheos articles about the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of sourcing

You mean Patheos blog posts. More reinforcement from inside the bubble. Right so the exchange between the two of you, shows why PSCI is essential policy in WP. There is no echo chamber allowed here. Just because something looks like a mountain inside a bubble, this does not mean it is a mountain in the real world. We get this all over the place in Wikipedia. There are many websites saying that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real thing; and people show up here demanding that The Truth that they and people they know are actually undergoing Electronic harassment be expressed in WP. There is no end to it, and the creationist bubble is no different. Such bubble worlds do not stand in WP, because WP articles are build from independent sources. Again, please see WP:FRIND. This has to be, due to the open nature of this encyclopedia. Everyone is obligated to follow this. This article needs to go, because outside of the creationist bubble, this documentary is not notable. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I never thought that Business Insider, Box Office Mojo, Religion News Service, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and the Orlando Sentinel were all infested with creationists. These are reputable and independent sources -- far from being some "creationist echo chamber." You are either denying this fact or setting a standard so high for film articles that a substantial amount of existing WP articles, including some that have passed AfD, would have to be delted under those standards. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Nope, see the Vaxxed article. Same deal. You are dancing around the core issue here; no independent sources but the Orlando passing mention even address the pseudoscience here. I get it that you want to see your bubble expressed here. We don't do that. I won't clutter this AfD further, trying to explain this to you. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC) So how does something 38% of Americans believe become a bubble or a Fringe theory? It's determined fringe by the other 62%, right? Patheos is not inside the bubble. There's a whole series of posts that takes the film apart one section at a time. If Patheos has so many writers talking about it positively and negatively, clearly this was an event of substance for a lot of Christians in the US. Should high-grossing documentaries that represent the views of that "other" 38% of Americans be ignored by WP just because a few editors don't personally like those views? There are equal, if not more, outlets listed on this film than many other documentaries. It is subjective to say that those outlets are not significant when they all themselves have WP entries as well as circulations in the tens of millions. You're clearly letting your bias take over. Surely you can see that?Boeldieu (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC) It would be pretty easy to find dozens of examples of even a majority of a population that believes that such and such fringe and/or even completely disproven idea is true. We go by what reliable, mainstream sources say, which may or may not be supported by public opinion. Should high-grossing documentaries that represent the views of that "other" 38% of Americans be ignored by WP just because a few editors don't personally like those views? is an obvious misrepresentation of what's happening here. It has nothing to do with not personally liking the view. There are countless articles about those views (or about works on those views) that are notable, and I don't think anybody in this thread would disagree with that. If it's a significant presentation of a notable point of view, it will receive coverage beyond proponents of that point of view, beyond blogs, beyond press releases, etc. The Business Insider article is a good step towards notability, but it's not enough. Orlando Sentinel would be ok, but it's a brief mention of a local screening. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Sorry I cannot let this "highest grossing documentary" thing keep flying around. This film brought in $1,796,182. That is the total take. That doesn't even crack the top 100 documentaries according to your BoxOfficeMojo. Try 70x that number to get the highest. heck Religulous had a 7x bigger take than this. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC) First off, the "$1,796,182" number was for the first day. The movie was in theaters two additional days, but BOM did not update for those two days. IGH's website says it made about $2.6 million altogether, but as I could not find an RS that mentioned that number, I just left the BOM box office. Also, the movie was released in over 700 theaters, according to BOM. Second, as Metropolitan90 also noted, there are many movies with Wikipedia articles that have smaller box offices that still have articles. And Metropolitan90's examples are by no means exhaustive. Considering this is an independent film, the box office is actually relatively large. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Regardless, it has been demonstrated that many reliable sources exist for this movie, such as BOM, AMFM Magazine, Business Insider, Patheos, The Post, The Christian Post, and others. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Oh I see, so BOM is not reliable. Good to know. At no point have you addressed PSCI. Not once. This is a problem. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC) BOM is reliable -- the website just did not update for the remaining two showings. The page makes very clear that the box office was as of February 23, 2017, the first showing. Other editors addressed PSCI, but if I have to, this article is about a movie, not a pseudoscientific theory. Just because a movie promotes pseudoscience does not mean we cannot have an article on it. What matters is that people are talking about it, and in this case this is what is happening. Many reliable sources exist for the movie. Do I realy have to repeat is again? And in addition to the numerous secular RSs, sources by Christian publishers do not disqualify the article (some Christian sources have been quite critical of the film, btw). So let me repeat: when will you nominate the articles of other movies that promote pseudoscience for deletion? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Thank you for again making the deletion argument for me. In the nomination I pointed to Vaxxed which passes NFRINGE as many, many article from outside of its bubble addressed its pseudoscience propanganda head on, and named it for what it was. (note that we don't even call it a "documentary", and we wouldn't call this one either if there were RS from outside of its bubble discussing it). Those kinds of sources don't exist for this movie. That is exactly the point. It was not notable enough to be debunked. If you are aware of other COATRACK articles like this one, please make me aware of them. I would appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) I already addressed your argument elsewhere. Is it just me, or is this happening a lot, where I address a point, and you repeat your claim that I rebutted somewhere else in the AfD? There are numerous indepdendent RSs, as I've pointed out a lot already, about this movie, and they do not challenge the designation as a documentary film. Just because a movie promotes pseudoscience does not automatically disqualify it as being a documentary film, unless numerous RSs call it otherwise. There are many documentary films that promote certain points of view. A documentary film does not need to be "correct" or even neutral to be a documentary film. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC) nope. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Here's another article about the film, this one from The Post (Ohio newspaper). While grossing $1.7 million may not seem that impressive, articles about films such as A Ghost Story, Personal Shopper, and Wilson (2017 film), each of which has grossed less than that despite featuring well-known actors, have not been called into question. Although the film has received few if any reviews from mainstream newspaper critics (due in part to the fact that it was exhibited mostly in showings on a single day), it has been subject to critiques from within the Christian community (see [1] and [2], for example) which take a skeptical view of this film's perspective. I would give this film the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And if any of the delete arguments here rested on "delete because it didn't make much money" this WP:OTHERSTUFF argument may make for a decent point. The problem is that it's people arguing to keep highlighting that it made a lot of money and others pointing out that (a) that's irrelevant to notability, and (b) it's not actually that much anyway. Personally, I think (b) isn't a productive path to go down because of (a). But in terms of the sources, we're stooping to a local paper running a few paragraphs about an upcoming local screening, covering the press release summary and why someone chose to screen it.... with nothing actually about the film otherwise? I'm not saying it can't be used, but for crying out loud look at the quality of these sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Enough sources have now been produced for me to change my vote. It does not matter if it is fringe science, or if the sources discus the science. All that matters is they have noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment here directly contradicts WP:PSCI, which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No it does not, I have not said we cannot call this film Pseudoscience. Nor is this about the Theron, it's a film about the theory. Nothing that I can see in policy says that scientists have ignored it so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It does. You are making an argument only saying "there are sources" but not looking at the subject matter, which PSCI says we must do. So many people make this bad argument - "there are sources for X", without dealing with other policies like NPOV and NOT. We do not just rotely record what sources say; we look at all the policies and the mission as well. And here the PSCI part of NPOV is essential to take into account. In any case, I will not respond to you further here. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Potential keep -- This is an article about a film. If it were an academic article about the film's subject, I would want to merge it to something else: I am sure we have WP Articles dealing with that subject. My question has to be whether this is a notable film: having not seen it, I do not know. However, we should not allow the scientific atheism POV to rubbish it. The subject matter is a serious view held by a lot of people, not merely FRINGE. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think that science is "atheism POV rubbish". Also, not only physical evidence contradicts these views, much larger religions also don't subscribe to them (like Roman Catholicism)... —PaleoNeonate – 14:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  Umm... First, it's not a serious view in any academic sense, and therefore FRINGE. Second, "science" isn't a POV, and we don't "do" that level of intellectually relativistic gymnastics. Finally, watching the movie is irrelevant. The issue is whether anything mainstream watched the movie and wrote about it. But, I still haven't really cast a !vote either way. I'm... still looking and waiting. TimothyJosephWood 14:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  whether this is a notable film: having not seen it, I do not know Thankfully, seeing a film is absolutely irrelevant to notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't give undue weight to fringe ideas (or works pushing fringe ideas). That's not "scientific atheism POV", that's Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't pro-atheism or anti-Christian. In fact, in a whole lot of places it reflects a clear pro-Christian perspective (the fact that so many editors would support this based on these arguments, all the while arguing "scientific atheism POV" is an indication of why that is). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This article existing is not "undue weight." Numerous sources (independent ones) exist about the movie, and for an independent film, it did reasonably well ($2.6 million box office, including all three showings, and released in 700 theaters). Also, this article is not about a fringe idea, it is about a movie about a fringe idea. They are different. We have numerous articles on other movies that promote fringe ideas, and many (a vast majority, I believe) did much worse than this one and received less coverage. We have articles on movies in general that performed poorer than this one. "Undue weight"? Absolutely no. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll say that the point about it being an article about a film about a fringe theory and not about an article about a fringe theory per se is a legitimate one. Compare Jesus Camp, which is similarly a film about fringe things, but the notability about the fringe things isn't a question, while the notability of the film is. Or compare Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi, which may do well with an AfD of its own. But to borrow a term from video game, movie, and book articles, if all the coverage is "in world" then it may not count for a whole lot. TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the coverage is not "in-world." I already mentioned many independent secular sources that discuss the movie. Also, even for the Christian sources, they are not necessarily "in-world." Most the negative reviews that I found about the movie were from Christian organizations. It is not a good idea to think that all the Christian publishers are cheerleaders. Some of those sources (such as The Christian Post and World), in addition to the secular ones, are notable sources/organizations on their own right. And BioLogos once was run by Francis Collins, who now chairs the National Institutes of Health (Obama appointee). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I'm still watching and waiting also. It's a movie, so some newspapers write brief blurbs about it. 'Brief' is the operative word here, eg 3 sentences in the Business Insider article. Have I missed any indept discussion in mainstream media? Doug Weller talk 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I did a BEFORE, before i nominated. And no mainstream sources with substantial discussion of the actual subject matter of this documentary have come up. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is a notable film, being noted in numerous publications and reviews by reputable organizations, such as The Biologos Foundation, chaired by the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). To delete the article would be nothing short of censorship. desmay (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of advocacy allegations

And here is another !vote from someone who has come to WP campaign against atheism and for christianity, not to mention other stuff per this and this. This is another advocacy-driven !vote that ignores PSCI, which is policy, Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Thou doth protest too much, methinks. TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Yes i am a bit allergic to pseudoscience advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Cast thy burden upon AfD, and it shall sustain thee: it shall never suffer the notable to be deleted, nor the non-notable to be kept. TimothyJosephWood 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Whether to keep this article has nothing to do with whether YEC is true or not, or whether it is pseudoscience. It has to do with whether the coverage of a movie about YEC is sufficient enough to keep the article. There is plenty of indepdendent media coverage, and you shouldn't make this an issue of whether YEC is fringe or not, because that is besides the point. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Just to clarify, I was mainly responding to this wording, but still, this article is not YEC "advocacy." And if it is, you should improve the article with its many indepdendent sources rather than delete it. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC) That is the first correct thing you have written here. Keeping this article depends on whether mainstream sources address its subject matter. None are here, and I looked and found no more. So it fails NFRINGE. And the advocacy i get exercised over, is that of editors, like your creation of this page and everything else you have written in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I have found plenty -- and stronger sourcing than some other articles that passed AfD. The movie was also more successful, even if you only count BOM, which recorded the box office of only one of the three showings, than numerous WP articles of movies. It is clearly a "keep" and it is not "YEC advocacy." Even if it is, fix it. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• So, 1990'sguy... Please treat me like an idiot. I'm seeing a lot of claims that this is covered, but this thread is getting immense. So... give me the short and sweet of the best of it. You seem to be the main proponent. TimothyJosephWood 04:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, here are the sources: Orlando Sentinel[3], Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (the newspaper of record of Arkansas)[4], Business Insider[5], AMFM Magazine[6], Religion News Service[7], The Christian Post (Christian organizations are divided over this movie, so this source is not "in-bubble")[8], Box Office Mojo[9], The BioLogos Foundation (already mentioned elsewhere on this page why it is a mainstream organization)[10], and Patheos (negative review). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Now, the boxofficemojo link is weak sauce. But other than that, this is the good stuff. I'm fine with it. Keep. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That is only Amazon and I still see no reviews there though... Imdb has a score and many user reviews but we can't use it as a reliable source... —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It is unfixable, as there are no mainstream sources. Not one of these sources says: "The subject of this movie is pseudoscience. The Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago; our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old. The earliest life probably appeared on Early around 3.5 billion years ago. On earth, continents have moved around, and the current configuration came into being around 65 million years ago. Humans evolved via evolution; the earliest members of our genus appeared around 3 million years ago, and our species, between 200 and 100,000 years ago. Genesis has uses for people of faith and students of mythology, but it is not science or history". In other words, there is no mainstream discussion of this movie. Your sourced this completely in-bubble, and you had to, as the rest of the world can't be bothered to address one more instance of creationist bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the article was sourced completely "in the bubble". The article creator cited several sources which express disagreement with the claims of the film. [11] says, "So what did we see in this film? It would take a book to flesh out all the false assertions made, so we’ll confine this review to a few illustrative examples. ... [T]he ubiquitous misrepresentations promulgated in this film are disturbing in their own right ...." [12] says, "[M]any of the segments interviewed scientists in disciplines far outside mine (geology, paleontology, biology). ... Often, I lacked the knowledge to counter the case they presented. However, these all seemed less credible after hearing an astronomer give the astronomical case for a young Earth. Astronomy is my area of expertise, and I quickly recognized the flaws in the story being told and know all the data presented fit quite comfortably in an old-earth perspective." [13] says, "In the first interview, ... geologist Steven Austin remarks, 'The story that we all learned in grammar school—(the) Colorado River over tens of millions of years cut the Grand Canyon—most geologists have jettisoned that idea.' There is some debate among scientists about how many millions of years the formation of the Grand Canyon took (70 million years or 5 million to 6 million years?), but outside the young-earth camp few if any scientists would question that the Colorado River did the carving, and that it took millions of years. It’s misleading to give viewers the impression that what’s being 'jettisoned' by 'most geologists' is this basic idea (Colorado River + millions of years)." Now, admittedly, all three of these are Christian sources, and the authors all assert their belief in the universe having been created by God, yet all of them object to the film's bias in favor of Young Earth creationism and assert that the film is misleading in its presentation of some scientific claims. If the film needs to have secular critics object to its claims, or perhaps more famous Christian critics objecting to its claims, then that may be a problem, because I haven't found those yet. But I don't think it should be implied that User:1990'sguy created an article just to present the film favorably without acknowledging criticism it has received. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Well the first two are blogs. Admittedly they're affiliated blogs, so they come with the weight of a name other than "some dude", but they don't seem to have anything like a bonafide university or museum affiliation. So, it's not clear that there's any reason to expect them do have any type of editorial oversight. The third seems better, but not exactly spectacular.

I'm not really on board with the standard that we need coverage saying "wrong, stupid, wrong" for several pages. Scathing coverage isn't synonymous with mainstream coverage. But I'm not sure this really counts as mainstream in any meaningful sense. TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Biologos is a mainstream organization. Not only do they fully accept evolution, but its president was Francis Collins, who resigned his position do be could become the head of the National Institutes of Health under Obama.

Jytdog, comments like these[14][15][16] go against WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You're worried that articles on offensive topics will remain because they have sufficient coverage. It seems like that you want to WP:CENSOR content that is offensive, even if it gets notable coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

On no. I have an affinity for offensive things. I'm a big fan. Sometimes I just like things that offend people for its own sake, and I don't particularly care for "people", so I'm not really that concerned with who it is that is offended. Offense is a bit like rioting. It's not very constructive in the short term, but it's often very constructive in the long term. The real issue in my mind is that we do similar things with video game characters on Wikipedia. If they only receive coverage from very niche sources, we tend to discount those sources as closely affiliated. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Sorry, the last part of my comment, when I said "You're worried that articles on offensive topics will remain because they have sufficient coverage. It seems like that you want to WP:CENSOR content," was directed at Jytdog -- I should have made myself more clear. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- no SIGCOV outside of the creationism sources; fails WP:NFRINGE. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that the sources are part of the creationist movement does not disqualify them as reliable or indepdent sources. THe sources are not controlled by the makers of the film, and so they are indepdent. In fact this film is much better sourced and more widely coveraed than lots and lots of films we have articles on, which might argue that we have not consistently applied the notability guidelines we have for films, but it does not argue for deletion of the article on this film. With a title like this, I was more expecting discussion of the historicity of Joseph of Egypt, the man Israel, the man Abraham, etc., but maybe this is because my background is history not evolutionary biology or paleontology, so issues like why we insist that ancient historians follow conventions in history that were not followed by early 19th-century historians, but at the same time do not cause us to lable them "not historians" are of interest to me, while issues where people ignore the fact that Jesus talks to his contemporaries with lines like "Sarah, she that bare you", and that in Hebrew son of and descendant of are generally interchangeable terms, and that using day for an undefined period of time is much easier than in English, all adding to the young earth creationists, especially those who agree with Utsher in dating the day Adam partook of the fruit with exactness, ignore the fact that they are reading into the text an exactness and precision that did not exist in the original. I also have to admit that the revisions of the Book of Genesis published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Moses, that I accept as revealed documents, add more to the ante-deluvian record in ways that complicate simplitic reads of Genesis, although I have need had the focus to do an indepth study of questions like how this balances with broad or narrow understandings of the impact of the flood, and have not really seen anyone take up the analysis of these documents other than for narrow polemical attack reasons or as comparisons to Enochian techs that were not known in the West at the time of Joseph Smith. We are still awaiting an indepth anthropological analysis of the Book of Moses as has been done to the Book of Mormon by John L. Sorenson, one that argues a reading of the text at face value makes it hard to ignore factors that make ancient texts inadequate for dating anceint events, but such an approach makes me unsymtathetic to those who insist on narrow readings of Genesis that often have little to do with what the text actually says. So I am not a supporter of this film in any way, but I can not accept the attempts to class a huge array of sources as somehow not accepteable, and to exclude them as usable sources. That strikes me as the type of snobbery that undermines gaining more knowledge or understanding the truth of the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This !vote misunderstands the PSCI policy, WP:FRIND, and WP:NFRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• An example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Connected Universe quantum quackery like What the Bleep Do We Know!?, but there was not enough reaction to, to create an NPOV article. Note that for what the bleep we have What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?#Academic_reaction.

Another example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornson Inertial Engine - yet another instance of the perpetual motion machine that nobody bothered to even debunk.

The kind of arguments folks are making here would leave Wikipedia opem to all kinds of works proclaiming all kinds of pseudoscience without contextualizing them, and without that contextualization, they are just WP:COATRACKs.

Turning back to this page in WP. We have creationism, YEC, etc because those subjects pass NFRINGE by miles and miles. This does not. Trying to pretend that this is just "some movie" like Star Wars or something, is straining very hard to ignore what this is - a "documentary" completely in a pseudoscience bubble. Lacking sources that say that, we cannot have an NPOV article about it. Where is the mainstream view of this movie described in the article? Where is the maintream view of the movie's topic given the most WEIGHT in the reception section, or anywhere? The answer is -- it is no where. And it cannot be, as we lack sources to summarize.

One can take the line or argument in !keep votes in a lot of very toxic directions - virulent atheist works, or racist/racial theory works, or what have you, could all come in. This is toxic. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of WP:CENSOR and WP:COATRACK

It might be time to drop the stick, Jytdog. I'm sure we're all fully familiar with your argument for deletion by now, and not everybody !voting keep is a creationist infiltrator trying to subvert the encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Please respond to this problem -- namely that the reasoning in !votes like yours, opens the door to wide to all kind of nasty things. Is that what you think the policies are guidelines are aiming for? Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Jytdog, you're essentially saying that you want Wikipedia to WP:CENSOR information that is offensive or "nasty." Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no criteria that articles cannot be about something nasty (emphasize the word "about"). Not only is this article well-sourced, but this topic is not even "toxic" or "nasty." "Viruelent atheist works, or racist works"? "A book that explains in great detail that Steve Bannon is the Antichrist, and means that with no irony"? This article is nowhere near that. You're comments sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC) CENSOR is the last refuge of scoundrels and pseudoscience advocates. The tinfoil hat people at the electromagnetic torture article yell the same....exact... thing. (see this AE for example... and that person has come back a'socking to try to get The TruthTM into WP which the "censors" keep "suppressing". (socks) And by the way, thanks for bringing in -- for the second time -- content that i decided not to add, trying to keep things concise. You keep helping me! And I am sorry that you cannot see that pseudoscience is toxic.-Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Until today (when I saw your AE link right above), I have never seen anyone use CENSOR to "protect" fringe content. I brought up WP:CENSOR because of some of your comments in which you clearly voice support for censoring article subjects because they are "nasty" or offensive. Your examples are much more "nasty" than the article we are debating over, by the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Well, you are learning! That is great. If you have any doubt as to why PSCI is policy, see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans which gives a nice explanation. Promoting any pseudoscience without providing the reality of the science is strictly out of bounds; pseudoscience advocates have tried to WP:COATRACK pseudoscience into WP since the early days of the project, which is why we have that essay. There is nothing new under the sun here. There is no difference between the claims of strict creationism about evolution and geology on the one hand, and electronic torture on the other, and snake oil salesman in the field of medicine on yet the other hand, from the perspective of science. That is not "nasty" that is just reality. WP is reality-based. And again, the arguments being made to !keep here, would let COATRACKS about all that garbage into WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC) If it's such a bad thing that that the article does not say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 13.8, then go fix it! The numerous negative reviews I added say things along that line. You're trying to make this discussion a question of whether creationism is true or not -- that's beside the point. This article has received a lot of coverage from notable and mainstream sources, and it is an article about something that promotes creationism -- not a creationist theory itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I can't as that would be WP:OR/SYN, as I noted above. The problem is that there are no mainstream sources that discuss how this movie promotes pseudoscience that would permit us to say this. This is what the nomination says, and what I have been saying throughout this discussion. This is what WP:NFRINGE talks about. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Once again, WP:NFRINGE discusses fringe theories themselves, NOT a movie about a fringe theory. There is a lot of independent media coverage of this movie, as I showed above. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC) The only reason you created the article, and are arguing like mad to keep it, is because of its subject matter. What you are saying here compared to what you are doing, is ridiculous. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Well that's a bit of mind reading isn't it? Have some tea. Relax. Frankly, as a virulent atheist myself, I'm starting to take offense. TimothyJosephWood 23:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Nope. 1990s's guy has made it clear that there is not nearly enough creationist content in WP. They have complained about bias against creationism (here), and have been warned by multiple people that they are pushing a creationist POV (here, here, here, and elsewhere - and none of those are me). And they got DYK redit for [{Ark Encounter]] (diff) and if you look at their edit count, the top articles are conservative politics or creationism. It is what they do here. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Yeah, and some people only edit articles related to pornography. ANI is that'a way. This is AfD. TimothyJosephWood 00:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Jytdog, I make my personal views very clear on my user page -- I'm not hiding anything. And as someone who is most interested in politics and social issues, those are the articles that I prefer to read and edit. If you actually care to look at the articles I edit most (or in general) I think even you will find that I improve them and adhere to NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC) I was responding to was the argument (which has been made several times) that this should be viewed as "just a movie". It isn't "just a movie". The subject matter teaches pseudoscience which the creator embraces fervently and it is especially silly for the creator to argue "Its just a movie". (and timothyjoseph your response was inapt; i answered the question you asked about mind-reading, and then you responded with something else. ANI is indeed thataway, as is AE, but that is not what this AFD is about Its about creation science. "documentary" - I don't even know what to call the genre of this film. It isn't a documentary about reality like Ken Burns The Civil War. Propaganda maybe. Part of the problem with not having independent sources is that we actually call this set of lessons in pseudoscience a "documentary". argh. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC) It has been demonstrated a lot already here that there are numerous indepdenent sources regarding the film -- the evidence has already cinvinced two skeptical editors to change their positions. These RSs call the film a documentary film, so that's what we will and should call it. We are not going to call it "propaganda", as you suggested. Many documentary films push certain points of view -- we are not going to call them "propaganda" because of that. Is An Inconvenient Truth propaganda? What about Fahrenheit 9/11? America: Imagine the World Without Her? Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party? These are called documentaries, like the RSs say, and just as the RSs call IGH a documentary, so should we. Promoting pseudoscience does not make the OR designation any more appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC) @Jytdog: Well I've devoted my entire adult life to studying events that happened before these people say the world came into being, so believe me I have no sympathy for creationism or the worldview that underlies it. I absolutely agree with you that we have to be extra-cautious with articles about fringe topics, to avoid giving them undue coverage or using Wikipedia's voice to present them as mainstream (i.e. WP:PSCI). But I don't think that the article, in its current state, would give an intelligent reader the impression that Wikipedia endorses creationism or that it is somehow mainstream. The article makes it abundantly clear that the film promotes creation science, and that article makes it abundantly clear that creation science is pseudoscientific dross. The only relevant question here, as I see it, is whether the film is notable. WP:NFRINGE directs us to ignore, as you put it, "in bubble" coverage by the promulgators of a fringe theory, but in this case I interpret that as just the filmmakers themselves, who we don't cite so the point is moot. There are reviews in notable publications, some of which are creationist, others mainstream Christian, and on balance I think that passes the threshold of notability. As I indicated in my original !vote I do think it's a marginal case, so I absolutely see your point and won't be at all surprise if consensus goes the other way. However I do honestly think that at this point your continuing to rhetorically bludgeon every keep !voter is achieving nothing but making the closer's life more difficult. On an off topic note, this discussion made me curious enough to watch the film itself last night. I highly recommend it. The photography is stunning and the commentary is so inane you'll be asleep in minutes. – Joe (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC) User:Joe Roe, Thanks for your note. If there is "bludgeoning" here (and I noted above that i am writing too much) that would be the creator and me together. Oddly enough you have not responded, even now, to the problem of COATRACKING that your line of argument creates. I won't ask you again, and I will stop writing so much. Please do consider the merge/redirect proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - so long as Since there is significant coverage, it is irrelevant whether the film is pseudoscience, porn, anti-religion, or totalitarian propaganda. Do not confuse the subject matter of the work with the work itself. XavierItzm (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the second !vote along these lines, and... I guess it needs pointed out that "keep so long as there is significant coverage" is ... like... going to FAC and saying "support as long as all the criteria are met". That's... just restating the purpose of the forum. TimothyJosephWood 19:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: If I'm not mistaken XavierItzm is saying "so long as there is significant coverage, it is irrelevant..." not "keep, so long as there is significant coverage". – Joe (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: In his nomination statement, Jytdog dismisses the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's coverage of the movie as "local coverage." It is true that the filmmaker was from Arkansas, but the Democrat-Gazette is the newspaper of record of Arkansas -- it is the major newspaper in the state. Dismissing the story as just "local coverage" is rediculous. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You are really stretching here. The story if very much "hey local boy did this thing!". (its the reason why this is the only mainstream newspaper to give this film any attention) Doesn't talk much about the subject matter, in any case. Again see Vaxxed which is a "documentary" about pseudoscience where independent sources talked about the message and there is no question of its notability. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You're ignoring the many other mainstream sources discussing this movie. The specific medium is not important. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSCI is the key policy here - and again you are correct that the medium is not important. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• An option to deletion here would be to merge into Creation science, where the article would provide the context required by PSCI... Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, that is simply rediculous, to say the least. We are debating the article of a movie, one that does have many indepdendent sources. Creation science is an article of a type of creationism. Two different things. What you're proposing is like redirecting the 2017 Dunkirk movie to the article of the actual evacuation, redirecting the movie An Inconvenient Truth to the global warming article, or redirecting the movie America: Imagine the World Without Her to American nationalism. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Commenht @Timothyjosephwood: The Arkansas article is behind a paywall, but the first sentence shows and can be found elsewhere.[17] - It looks like it came from a prses release and doesn't discuss the film in any depth. As said before, the Orlando piece doesn't discuss the film in any depth. AMFM magazine - I'm not sure what it is but I can't find an article here for it or any evidence that it is a reliable source, and it is just a fawning interview inviting Tackett to repeat his views, no discussion at all. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Forgot. RSN[18] - how is this not just a passing mention? It doesn't qualify as an indepth discussion and IMHO isn't worth using as a source. Doug Weller talk 06:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well Doug, there's coverage. That doesn't seem to be the crux of the issue, but rather whether there is mainstream coverage. I'm sympathetic to the argument that Christianity isn't the fringe thing here, young earth creationism is the fringe thing, and so it's not quite even handed to discount any religious affiliated source as a fringe source. The real issue is whether that source is only talking about the film because they have an interest in promoting a wild belief that few or no serious and informed folks adhere to.

You can't really say that about the TGC source. It's unquestionably in depth, and pretty openly critical, all "brother and sisters in Christ" caveats aside. Of all things, they seem to be writing about the film because they feel it is in many ways theologically dangerous. That doesn't look very much like mouth-breathing-creationism; it looks a lot like mainstream Christian apologetics. I'm not personally a big fan of apologetics, but that probably just makes me personally not-very-mainstream, and when you get into comparatively sophisticated argument about where nature ends and where the "guiding hand" begins, when you get into interpretive issues of stylized, broad stroke, idiomatic, and/or symbol-laden language, you're getting into areas where the Pope starts nodding his head and agreeing with you, and that's pretty damned mainstream.

I think what really pushed me over the edge was the BI source. It's not a full page spread, but it does seem pretty tailor made to answer the question of how, if at all, does this film have relevance outside of a few tin-foil hat wearing basement dwellers, since the entire point of the piece seems to be very directly look how these things you may have otherwise discounted as irrelevant are actually highly relevant to the larger socio-political scenery. "Passing mention" isn't just raw word count, but rather why they are writing about it, and there seems to be a purpose to the BI article that is not very far from the purpose of AfD, namely, why the thing should be considered broadly relevant. TimothyJosephWood 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep and that BI article says ""One of the key reasons why people come to faith-based films is because of the message," he said. "You have to drive the message first and then wrap an organic story around the message. If you are leading with just a great story, then they could see a Hollywood release."". This movie exists because of the message. Where is the msinstream response that the message is pseudoscience? I think it is fine that Christians want a safe space at the movies. WP is not a "safe space" - we have PSCI here. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's fair to expect that Richard Dawkins needs to come out and hold a live press conference on the thing before we can consider it notable. I think given the social landscape here, a source coming out and saying essentially this is grossly theologically over-simplistic is actually pretty mainstream. Just because we don't have a section in the article entitled lies and utter horse shit doesn't mean the thing isn't notable. Because what you seem to be arguing along the lines of is The due weight doesn't swing my way enough so that I can write an article that rips this movie a new one. Therefore, it must not be notable. You seem to be confusing "scathing" with "mainstream" but the standard is independent of their promulgators and popularizers and not vitriol, and I don't think you have a very strong argument in the absence of conceptually expanding NFRINGE here to include all Christian sources and not just YEC sources.

You don't seem to be getting, and at this point I'm growing dubious you will get, that this is an article about a movie about creationism, and not an article about creationism. It's not necessary to have a detailed breakdown of the film's "arguments" such that we should need Mr. Dawkins's rebuttal. Maybe that's a movie review, but this is an encyclopedia. Maybe there's a place for that in Young Earth creationism somewhere. Since I expect most of the movie is probably the same old worn out talking points with better special effects, I expect much of it is already there. But if people want the full story on the science and the utter horse shit they can go to the main articles for them. TimothyJosephWood 10:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per 1990'sguy. That the film's ideas are not accepted by mainstream scientific opinion is not a reason for deletion if there is sufficient coverage of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"if there is sufficient coverage of the subject" the lack of sufficient coverage was precisely the reason for the deletion nomination. —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I demonstrated above that there is sfficient coverage, and more indepdendent sources were found since the AfD was started. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Because sourcing passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. 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.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Fringe theories are communicated via various media before they are notable in their own right, and we frequently merge articles about concepts/theories themselves into articles about e.g. books written to promote those concepts/theories. But the book (or film) most definitely still need to be notable according to WP:FRINGEN -- being in book or film form doesn't create a "get out of FRINGEN free" pass. What use would our guidelines on fringe topics be if they didn't apply to the fringe topics in media form? WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGEN most definitely apply to media about those fringe theories, or it would be an easy end-run around policy to simply create an article about a book/film, rather than the theory, in order to have an article about a fringe subject for which there's no in-depth mainstream coverage. That's the whole point here. We have a subject promoting a fringe point of view that has not received in-depth mainstream coverage. It doesn't get a pass on our fringe policies just because it's a film advocating a particular fringe subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note That this is NOT an article about a "fringe theory". It is an article about a POV documentary film about a theory and should be judged according to the rules of WP:NFILM, just like any other POV documentary. Note in particular that the specialists interviewed in documentaries on political or controversial subjects frequently share a worldview and a political POV with the filmmakers, and that WP:NFILM section WP:NFSOURCES states: "The source needs to be independent of the topic, meaning that the author and the publisher are not directly associated with the topic. Authors should not include members of the production, and publishers should not include the studio or companies working with it on the production and release. The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note That this IS an article that falls under WP:PSCI/WP:FRINGE 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). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• On what basis are you categorizing this as a THEORY rather than s a FILM?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closing editor a series of editors has argued for judging this a film, and the rules on which sources can be used for a film (independent sources are those without financial or direct links to film,) are very different from the argument made by Nom and Rhododendrites for judging this as a theory and disallowing media and gorups that believe in creationism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

E.M. Gregory nice COATRACK "reminder". :) Any competent closer is going to see that some see this as a film and ignore its subject matter, and others see this as a film that exists to promote pseudoscience and if that reason cannot be addressed with sources (per RS or PARITY) per PSCI, we cannot have an article on it. You are just repeating your argument in a pseudo-objective way. I shudder at what WP would look like if everyone thought this way.Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep: 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 WP:COATRACK concerns that a few have voiced here. So my 'keep' opinion depends on:

1. Its passing the WP:NOTABILITY test.
2. That the hatnote:
   This page is about a film. For the article about the topic of this film, see Young Earth creationism.
   be added below the article title.
3. Article should meet Wikipedia policy in the same way Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed does.

About the hatnote condition, WP:HAT says: "Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind."... that is the case with this title, and adding the hatnote will make it clear that article content is about the movie itself (and not an invitation, as per by the WP:COATRACK concerns voiced throughout this discusssion, to use this article to further promote the movie promotes.

Actually, that's it. I also wanted to add a condition that any of the movie's scientific claims mentioned should be compared to scientific consensus (so perjorative adjectives like 'pseudoscience' aren't required), and that the 'reception' (criticisms, whatever) section begin with an overall assessment (a mainstream-press cited one, preferrably, or a collection of the same) of critic/audience reactions, and that acclaim-citations be limited to acclaims for the movie itself (and not weasel-y 'because movie acclaims' citations that read like acclaims for YEC) as but all of these should be done, anyway, if they are to adhere to WP:POLICY. Anyhow, adding '(movie)' to the title will at least draw a clear reference line for all that, and I don't see how anyone who really wants to make this article about the movie itself (and nothing more) can have any objection to that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of article title

I see where you're coming from but we don't disambiguate when there is nothing to disambiguate from. Per WP:NAME, the title of the article should be the title of the work. I believe the fact that it is a film is made clear by the first sentence, which reads "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian documentary film". – Joe (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I didn't suggest the 'movie' addition (in bracketed, whatever form) as disambiguation, but as clarification. One would think that an article title should reflect its content when it can, before anything else, no? The title as it is couldn't be more ambiguous in that regard, and, again, making the 'movie' distinction would nip potential WP:COATRACKing in the bud. Remember, this movie covers a controversial subject, so some extra clarity could be considered here. If presenting this article as a movie (and nothing else) is the primary goal, the (not being discourteous, here) WP:WIKILAWYERING should come after, and not be an argument point in itself (that (fallaciously) distracts from and 'discredits' the main concern... I have seen this often, unfortunately).THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC) The article makes it very clear that it is a movie and not a question or anything. Not only does the intro, movie poster, and infobox make it clear, but the title is italicized like how it is for all movies and books. Besides, this is Wikipedia, not answers.com, so I doubt that people will think that the article will give them a yes/no answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC) The title isn't at all clear - not in google results, nor in any search here. Is it italicised there, too? But hey, if 'hooking' is the goal... but that's missing (or distracting from) the point that that fact that this article is about a movie, and nothing more, must be clear to readers and contributors alike. The rest of your comment isn't an answer to anything I said. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I've made my points, and don't see what else I can add, so I'll leave them to stand to testing for themselves. Take care, all. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with what talk is saying and vote for delete. Hmcst1 (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Quick note. Have spent a bunch of time looking for refs, and the only ones I found that are (only somewhat) independent of the creationist/religious bubble (and even these are from a blog focused on religion and not totally outside of that bubble, but is at least well outside the creationism bubble) is this 5 part series by some blogger I never heard of. This is really poor, and all we have here (and I looked for a long time), compared to the actually mainstream refs like the NYT and Vanity Fair that dealt with the subject matter of Vaxxed. It isn't enough, and instead the reception section of the existing is all in-bubble propaganda:

• "Digging Deep into the Movie, "Is Genesis History" (Part 1): Rock Layers, Paradigms, and How This YECist Movie Tries to Bury the Truth". resurrecting orthodoxy. 2 June 2017.
• "Digging Deep into the Movie, "Is Genesis History?" (Part 2): What is the Text of Genesis 1-11 Really About?". resurrecting orthodoxy. 3 June 2017.
• "Digging Deeper into the Movie "Is Genesis History?" (Part 3): Dating Methods You Can't Trust, and Epochs that Aren't in the Bible". resurrecting orthodoxy. 5 June 2017.
• "Digging Deeper into the Movie "Is Genesis History?" (Part 4): Baraminology, Faster Than the Speed of Light, Babel…and David S. Pumpkins". resurrecting orthodoxy. 7 June 2017.
• "Digging Deeping into the movie, "Is Genesis History?" (Part 5): The Culture Wars, Creation as Judgment, and the Inevitable Conclusion". resurrecting orthodoxy. 11 June 2017.</ref>

If this is kept, we'll have to introduce content from these per WP:PARITY and give the most WEIGHT in the reception section to the mainstream view of the subject matter. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is rediculous. There are many indepdendent and reliable sources, enough to have convinced two skeptical editors to change their !votes above. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please identify which one of those describes what this movie is about from the mainstream scientific perspective and calls it pseudoscience. Please also answer - why does the reception does not describe what this movie advocates as pseudoscience? Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

We don't need sources that say that this movie promotes false things -- other editors have also made this point clear above. All we need is for reliable and indepdendent sources to be talking about this movie -- and this is the case (at the same time, we do have plenty of negative reviews that say what you want). Besides, if YEC is obviously garbage, why would the RSs want to constantly repeat themselves? You constantly bring up the movie Vaxxed, but the vaccine stuff is much newer than YEC, which goes back at least as far as the Bible itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That is nonresponsive to the question about sources - again which of those sources address the mainstream view on the subject matter of the movie? Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

You're refusing to see the point -- it doesn't matter so long as reliable and independent sources are talking about the movie. You're question is irrelevant because I have demonstrated that many of those sources discuss the movie. You still want sources addressing the mainstream view? Look at the "Reception" section. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me also add that the problem is not the coverage of the movie -- it's the fact that you don't like how the RSs are covering the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Still not responsive. I understand that you do not intend to answer, so you don't need to reply again. And I will ask you again tostop misrepresenting the nomination; the nomination is policy-based concerning the pseudoscience policy which is not IDONTLIKE it, and your continued description of it as such is likely sanctionable. You have been made aware of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience topics; I am reminding you of them again. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

'Sidebar' directed at E.M.Gregory

User:E.M.Gregory I am dismayed by your !vote here and your arguments for it, repeated with bolding. Generally I find myself agreeing with your judgement in AfDs but here we are really far apart. I'll be frank that I am seeking to persuade you to change your perspective on this. (so please hold your breath, and try to consider... please?) This is a movie, yes, but it is ... propaganda for pseudoscience. (I can't call it a documentary" - it is nothing like say The Civil War (TV series) that is actually a documentary. It is very much like Vaxxed that is seeking to persuade people, in both cases adamantly opposed to what science says.) There are literally no sources about this film that are independent of its bubble-world and address its subject matter, like there are about Vaxxed, which got coverage from all major media including the NYT, all of which addressed its subject matter and debunk it. Please look at the Reception section of this artcle, and compare it with that one if you like. Please. I am really concerned as I view you as mainstream and active in AfDs, and in my view the argument you are making here would allow all kinds of COATRACKed material, sourced almost entirely from inside its bubble, into WP. Would you please reconsider? Happy to hear any response you have. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC) As I already mentioned above, a documentary movie does not need to be "correct" or neutral. There are many documentary movies that promote strong points of view. For example: An Inconvenient Truth, Fahrenheit 9/11, America: Imagine the World Without Her, and Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. If a movie promotes pseudoscience, that does not automatically disqualify a movie from being a documentary. We go by what the sources say. As I demonstrated a lot already, there are a lot of independent, third party sources that discuss this movie. Saying there are none is a flat-out lie. There are quite a few secular sources, as other editors have also noted (including at least one who is an atheist), just because a source is Christian does not disqualify it as being independent. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC) The question was not to you.Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC) I stand by the analysis I gave above. I won't repeat that I already wrote, but I will add that I have a particular problem with the assertion that "are literally no sources about this film that are independent of its bubble-world." Following WP:NFSOURCES, an article about this film in a denominational publication like Adventist Review is no less independent than coverage of Mile High: The Comeback of Cannabis in High Times, the publication and the film lack the sort of direct conflict of interest specified in that guideline. This applies to several of the sources in the article, although others are within the "bubble" and, in my opinion, can and should be removed. But there are also sources like the film reviewer in the Orlando Sentinel, and The Christian Post, a publication that is respected for the caliber of its journalism and for the breadth of coverage on issues of interest to committed Christians. I don't think such sources can be dismissed as supporting notability under WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC) I want to add that I came late to this topic, well after users like Jytdog had already done the heavy lifting of rewriting lede and body of text to NPOV and clarify that this is a film promoting a belief/theory that lacks credibility among biologists. I am aware that keeping articles about which many editors and readers have very strong opinions can attract POV editing and lead to edit-warring. I just don't think deletion is the solution. Although Merging sometimes can be.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC) User:E.M.Gregory two things. First, I have barely touched this article. (edits by user). More importantly, you didn't engage with what I asked you and instead talked past it. You are of course free to be nonresponsive. I tried... Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: per [WP:NFRINGE]] and WP:PCSI ahem WP:PSCI. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This article has many sources, including those that criticize the film, as well as those that praise it. It is notable and should be kept. Eliko007 (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• KeepDelete. the fringe theory policies seem to be related to discussions of fringe theories themselves. Since the movie meets notability standards regardless of its topic, they don't apply here.---Jahaza (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On further review, I don't think this meets the relevant film guideline WP:NFO.--Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Invalid argument; WP:NFO is a list of additional criteria that can be usefully applied to films that do not meet the usual WP:NFILM criteria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep 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 WP:NOTFILM 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. Canterbury Tail talk 17:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it passes WP:NFO? There aren't multiple independent reviews.--Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Huh? There are plenty of independent reviews; see the reception section of the article or 1990'sguy's first comment above. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of policies, guidelines and WP:CONLEVEL

Quick note - PSCI and SOAPBOX are each policy, and people are citing a project level guideline (NFILM) as somehow trumping policy. This is deeply wrong and I hope the closer takes into account policy-based discussion, and the way that policies and guidelines work together. I can only imagine the same issues would arise with say NBOOK or any other specific media where pseudoscience can be propagated and get an article here in WP that becomes a COATRACK. It may take a project-wide RfC to get NBOOK, NFILM, and any other project level guidelines brought into harmony with policy. Local consensus cannot be used to trump policy. I'll end up doing that one way or the other after this closes. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC) And the UNDUE weight given to praise for pseudoscience just keeps growing, per this. The article is pure COATRACK and violates PSCI and is only going more strongly in that direction. That diff shows how phony it is to be considering this to be "just a film". Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC) Jytdog, I most likely see the same things happening as you do, and were I involved I would probably share your frustration, but I have to note here that (even correctly) pointing out 'side-issue' problems, when the central issue is this film's WP:NOTABILITY, is futile. Yes, those will lesser intentions will surely use this single valid point as a WP:COATRACK, but that is an issue that (unfortunately) must be dealt with seperately. Wikipedia simply does not have a mechanism for dealing with WP:SOAPBOXing, nor do its (beleaguered) admins seem willing/able to recognise that often very-organised under-the-radar 'slow attack' pattern, and yes, as long as an article has at least one valid reason for existing, it will undoubtedly continue until Wikipedia learns to deal with it. FWIW, I am making some attempt (albeit clumsily) to bring attention to this problem globally. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC) You are wrong about that. This article fails NFRINGE and should be deleted. Decisions are only as good as the gathering of editors who makes them. Just counting noses and not taking policy into account,, this one is going "no consensus". We will see what the close is. But regardless, I will fix the NFILM guideline to bring it in line with PSCI and FRINGE and NFRINGE. Things take time; sometimes it takes a few AfDs to delete things. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Look, the article title is a demonstrably real 'thing' (in this case, a movie) in itself. If one goes through all the (rather predictable) Wikilawyering process, that point will remain in the end (and will be no doubt isolated (ignoring other issues) and hammered home by those intending to abuse it), so the only criteria for its in/exclusion from Wikipedia is its WP:NOTABILITY. Yes, I see that this will be abused (and that must be dealt with accordingly), but trying (futilely) to get it deleted will only (fallaciously) help justify that abuse (and probably trigger a(n off-wiki) 'call to arms' that will result in even more abuse). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC) PS: Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed is a great example: this movie should get the same treatment. If some insist on presenting its claims as 'truth', and those claims have been addressed, that should be included in the article, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia is full of bad content. This article fails NFRINGE. Don't confuse the fundamental, long-term policy issues with hopelessness. We will get things right eventually. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Wow, Jytdog, I know things can get passionate at AfD, but surely you didn't mean to state "I will fix the NFILM guideline to bring it in line with PSCI and FRINGE and NFRINGE," as opposed to writing that you intended to make a proposal and attempt to gain consensus. Or to seem to accuse other editors of not trying to "get things right," as opposed to recognizing that honest editors can have different perspectives on what the "right" approach to assessing notability is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I will be very surprised if the community allows a guideline to remain unamended that violates policy. Very surprised. If this article is kept it will be exhibit 1. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: For my own reasoning it should be deleted because the misleading article title, if "kept" I suggest it be at least deleted in its current location and moved (maybe Is Genesis History? (film)). However the current article title suggest to me some amount of COI, as does the some of the promotional style wording in the article itself. Anyway, that is my !vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endercase (talk • contribs)
  • @Endercase: Please familiarise yourself with the deletion policy before participating in AfDs. We don't delete articles just because there is something wrong with the title, that is what the move function is for. Regardless, the title of the film is Is Genesis History?, so the title of the article is Is Genesis History?. There is no policy-based reason for calling it anything else. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Joe Roe: Please familiarise yourself with wp:civil, and attempt to not talk down to fellow editors in the future. Also, the move function is a form of deletion as the original article is deleted. Also familiarising yourself with typical reply formats would be helpful. Endercase (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion of article title and hatnotes

It also occurred to me that moving to Is Genesis History? (film) would help with the pseudoscience concerns. But, somewhere in the endless comments above, I think someone already expressed the next thought that ocurred tome, which was: Yeah, but we don't do a disambig unless there is some other thing (another film, a book, or similar) also entitled Is Genesis History?. If someone thinks that we can override that, and rename this article, I'd be in favor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I'm glad that some are starting to see where I was coming from, but in this case, given this article's possibly-WP:FRINGE nature (or an invitation to that end), the addition would be for clarity and not disambiguation. But yes, some may see the addition as disambiguation, or try to make it seem that way, and move to eliminate it. TP ✎ ✓ 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Nothing about my opinion has changed. And we would need a policy-based justification for adding "(film)".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I'm making a point, and if there's no rule about something, we can't do it? But anyhow, even that's not important when there's a risk of someone removing the 'unneeded disambuguation' (because there is a rule about that that someone short-sighted (or of bad faith) might act (or game) on)... so even without opinion, that idea won't hold out in the long run, anyway. I don't have another solution to propose, for now. TP ✎ ✓ 23:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Wait: a hatnote indicating that this is an article about a movie, with a link to the what the movie is promoting (YEC)? TP ✎ ✓ 23:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Brilliant. I'm not sufficiently expert in the wikilawyering dept. to know four sure. But, yes, I think that would work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Striking, as per info by User:Joe Roe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Endercase, E.M.Gregory, and ThePromenader: are there any existing examples of articles with such a title for clarity (as opposed to disamiguation) purposes? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Are there many articles about movies that are propaganda for WP:FRINGE theories like this one is, and is there any rule against adding clarity to an ambiguous title, and are we not rational adults, here? I predict a citation of the 'disambiguate only when necessary' (even though no-one proposed disambiguating anything) rule... TP ✎ ✓ 22:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC) @E.M.Gregory and ThePromenader: The conventions for hatnotes can be found at WP:HAT. The short version is that, like parentheses in the article title, they are used sparingly, where disambiguation is necessary. We don't need to insult our reader's intelligence by plastering "this is pseudoscience" notices all over the article. They can form that conclusion by reading literally just the first sentence. It seems to me that you're coming up with solutions in want of a problem: nobody has tried to turn this article into an answer to the question "is Genesis history?", or a coatrack for YECism, or anything other than a straightforward description of the film. And there are no doubt now dozens of editors watching it who will prevent that becoming a problem in future. – Joe (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Well, if we must reallly wikilawyer, WP:HAT states: "Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." Which pretty well covers this case in a nutshell. I really, really don't understand the 'need' to eliminate even that added clarity. TP ✎ ✓ 11:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Prominader, there are many documentary movies that promote "propaganda" that have Wikipedia articles (and none of them have "clarified" titles, which are simply unnecessary in this case). This movie has plenty of independent sources, as I've demonstrated a lot above, so the fact that it promotes YEC is irrelevant to whether to keep the article -- and because there is only one use of the title "Is Genesis History?" notable enough for use on Wikipedia, there is no need for a "clarification." If we are all "rational adults" here, we should accept that the reader is not going to think that this article discusses the actual question or YEC theories when they see this article. Being a movie that promotes YEC does not make a "clarification" any more appropriate. Thus, I strongly oppose any proposed page move. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC) I'm seeing the word 'documentary' hammered a lot as a description of this film, but I don't think that a... "A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record."[19] ...definition fits this movie at all. And no-one is 'insulting anyone's intelligence' with a This page is about a film. For the article about the topic of this film, see Young Earth creationism. ...so thanks for that. And no, we cannot 'accept' that readers will come to 'the right conclusion' (convenient to 'keep' rationalising) when seeing an ambiguous title in search results, but the clarification wasn't about that anyway, it was more to prevent the article from becoming a (further) WP:COATRACK for its topic's material. All I'm seeing in the rule-citing and vote-counting here is a drive to keep this article...'s title as ambiguous as possible. TP ✎ ✓ 04:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC) And yes, in the best of worlds, this article would be subject to a sort of perma-patrol, but we all know that's not going to happen. TP ✎ ✓ 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Promenader, that is a classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale for changing how we describe the movie. We describe the movie by what the RSs do, and the RSs call this movie a documentary -- thus, that's what we will call it. I have noted a lot above, there are many different documentary movies that promote many different points of view, and unless the RSs call them otherwise, they are call documentaries. Do you think that 2016: Obama's America is documenting reality? What about Fahrenheit 9/11? Also, you misinterpreted the intro of Wikipedia's "Documentary film" article. Read closely: the intro says that a documentary film is "intended to document some aspect of reality." The filmmakers don't have to be correct -- they can be very wrong. But if their intention is to document reality, then it is technically a documentary film. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Citing the article directly isn't 'interpreting' anything, and besides, 'interpreting' here is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 18:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Might I suggest, in the interest of keeping this AfD on topic and making the difficult job of closing it no more difficult than it has to be, that we postpone any discussion of moving the article, hat-noting the article, or changing the description of the film from "documentary" until after this AfD closes. If it closes as "delete", all the arguing over the other issues will be moot. If it closes as "no consensus" or "keep", a move request or RfC would be in order for the other issues. There is no WP:DEADLINE. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Endercase: I'm sorry if you found my comment un-civil, but I'm afraid you're not correct that moving a page is a form of deletion. It simply renames it, retaining all the content and history, and turning the old title into a redirect. What part of my reply was malformatted? – Joe (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• We don't delete articles just because there is something wrong with the title deletion can however be adequate for unambigiously promotional articles, which was also one of his points. —PaleoNeonate – 01:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep While no reason to reject the strong notability, article in its present form seems informative and encyclopedic. Also agree with @E.M.Gregory: about WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Capitals00 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Mmmmmm keep, many of the sources mentioned above are mere 'mentions', such as Business Insider, which is discussing 'god' films in business terms, How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump other sources are mere press releases or 'blurbs', such as 'Orlando'. Some of the 'reviews' from advocates of this film's position even cannot be taken seriously, since they barely discuss either content or how well the content is presented, it being taken as a given that 'godly' content deserved support. However, some of the strongest, most informative sources come from non-creationist christians, such as this, these people take the view that 'creationism' is pseudo-religion, rather than just pseudo-science We long for the day when the church will realize that the gospel and the authority of Scripture do not need to be propped up with convoluted arguments and misrepresentations of the natural world. When nature is allowed to proclaim its message without preconceived notions of its history, it declares the glory of God just fine. . On balance I thought the sourcing is just strong enough to give a balanced account of content and enough true reviews from 'outside the bubble'. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure why this has become such a huge pissing match. Vast number of sources of presumed reliability about THE FILM, which is the subject of this piece. My personal view of the absurdity of the movie's thesis is irrelevant; so should it be for you. Passes GNG, done. Carrite (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional keep I was leaning towards strong delete at first glance considering the nature of the topic in the movie and some comments by User:Rhododendrites, but I think that the well formatted comments by User:ThePromenader are worth leaning on. The distinction between the movie's popularity and the fringeness of the content in the movie are two separate things - and different things like adding "(movie)" to it can disambiguate it. Seeing that others have mentioned that it has gained some responses from outside sources like BioLogos, then it has some notability. Not to mention that as the movie gets more reception by "outside" organizations and gets more attention, the movie can become even more notable and get more reviews from the outside. This movie was released this year (2017) and since it has some receptions already, it is possible it is gaining momentum on its own. Most people do not get their latest movie info from wikipedia! They hear about the movie outside of wikipedia and then they may try to look it up only to stumble on wikipedia. I am thinking of the recent movie called The_Red_Pill for example on how it is a movie on men's rights activism also from 2017 and as time goes on it seems gains more notability with more people watching. I will have to agree that the treatment of this movie should parallel other movie wikipages like Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed or I would say even Forks_Over_Knives and other films that share less fashionable ideas.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Pincrete, Carrite, and Ramos1990: pinging you as the most recent !voters here. I've lost track of some of the threads here, but could someone provide some quick bulletpoints of the independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the film? I agree with Pincrete up until referencing The BioLogos Foundation as an example of a good source (a Christian advocacy organization -- whether it's YEC or not isn't really the issue, but rather the fact that it's responding to it in its capacity as a Christian advocacy organization -- it's not a mainstream film critic or neutral mainstream view. advocacy websites are rarely considered good sources in general). I'm thinking that people are seeing the lists of purported good sources and assuming they are good sources, when in fact they include data sites like Box Office Mojo, absolute bottom of the barrel stuff like World News Daily, a lot of brief mentions/announcements/press releases that don't go indepth into the film, and an overwhelming amount of material from Christian advocacy organizations and publications. Without pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF, and even ignoring, for the time being, the fringe/psci arguments, I think it would be useful to have a succinct breakdown of only the high-quality sources that establish notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To my mind, it doesn't matter whether an independent publisher of information is mainstream, alternative, or "fringe" (quote, unquote), but rather whether the coverage is substantial and the information presumably accurate. This qualifies. Too many people take the attitude that if it's not in in the New York Times or Time magazine, the independent source providing coverage is somehow invalid. Not so. Good information sometimes comes from "bad" places, bad information sometimes comes from "good" places. We are not here to be monkeys to count the number of NYTimes cites: "1-2-3" — we've gotta use our god-given brains (irony intended) to parse and analyze and weigh. Coverage of this film in the Christian press is massive; information about the film is presumably accurate. That is all we need. It does not matter if the Washington Post or the San Francisco Chronicle or the Hollywood Reporter is silent on the matter... Is the independent coverage out there? Can we trust the content therein? If yes and yes, GNG is met, to my mind. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Saying not everything has to be the New York Times isn't the same as affirming the sources presented here are WP:RS. Not everything is the New York Times, no, but there are untold hundreds or thousands of newspapers, magazines, journals, books, and websites that aren't the New York Times, but which are nonetheless reliable publications for this sort of thing (i.e. not World News Daily or an advocacy organization's website). It's pretty well standard that an advocacy group's blog post about a subject in its advocacy wheelhouse doesn't contribute much by way of notability. Likewise lousy sources that don't meet the standards of WP:RS. Regardless, if someone will indulge me, I'd still like to see the "best of" that people are basing their keep !votes on, since most people are referring to sources as though they've already been mentioned. I see people pointing to 1990'sguy's initial list at the top, which contains not even one example of in-depth coverage in a reliable source. All either unreliable or a mention of a screening, snippets from a press release or the filmmaker's promotion -- not reviews (i.e. in-depth coverage) but promotion/advocacy/superficial coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That BioLogos are christians seems to be irrelevant, their criticism of the bad science is detailed and exact and they are competent to make it . Their criticism of the bad religion aligns them with most of christians worldwide and most of the greatest christian thinkers through 2 millenia, (Aquinas realised that god would have to create time, how long did that take?) BioLogos are 'outside the bubble' of creationism and their most effective criticism is of the 'false dichotomy' (that you have to be a creationist or an atheist), the 'false dichotomy' is as much bollox as the film's science probably is. btw I'm an atheistically-inclined agnostic who just happens to think that these people give god a bad name as well as making crap films.

It would be good if we also had more assessments of the film's worth 'as a film' in addition to those that assess the validity and honesty of the scientific and religious content, but the 'content' is the key here. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That BioLogos are christians seems to be irrelevant - it's not just that they are a Christian organization, but that they are an advocacy organization. If PETA, the Heritage Foundation, the Satanic Temple, the National Smokers Alliance, or Answers in Genesis issued a statement about a film, I would likewise point out that it's an advocacy organization doing advocacy. Regardless of the bias itself, they're reliable only for their own opinion and so should be weighted as such when considering notability. The words in the sources (the content) is only part of the picture, or otherwise I could start a blog right now and write an in-depth review of a film (if the content is good, I'm still not a reliable source because my website doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, editorial oversight, neutral presentation of facts, and I make no claims to be a film reviewer -- it would be entirely in the service of this AfD, i.e. because it's my own website and it serves a particular purpose that is not to give in-depth reviews of films). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Are christians incapable of evaluating science? Are they incapable of evaluating 'bad religion', which seems to me to be an equally valid point of reference from which to criticise this film? BioLogos are an advocacy org perhaps, or at least a 'belief org' but one which opposes 'literal Genesis' and is competent to criticise on both scientific and theological grounds. How many sources are going to be wholly free of a religious viewpoint, scientifically literate and also able to review films? All film reviews are ultimately opinion, documentary reviews benefit from some critical 'expert opinion' from those who know something about the subject. Are these people's scientific credentials not considerably stronger than an average secular reviewer? Do they have any vested interest in supporting creationist arguments? A bonus to me is that they criticise from 'inside the tent', proving that it is quite possible to have christian belief and NOT accept this pseudo-scientific hogwash, billions of christians have been doing just that for two millenia. I'm not a practising christian, but I do know that not all of them are stupid or scientifically illiterate or brain-washed. Creationism is actually a relatively recent belief masquerading as a 'true' belief. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this is a response to my last comment. Again, that they are Christian isn't the point. The websites of advocacy organizations -- in general -- are not good sources for film criticism (or most purposes). A reduction of all film criticism to "opinion" doesn't make them equivalent. Evaluating the words on the page, as well, isn't enough to overcome the poor quality of the source (unless, again, the same people writing writing the same thing on a blog I create today would be considered a reliable source). That the film is advancing a POV that Biologos rejects (in part, at least) doesn't make it more reliable -- it means the advocacy organization is doing its advocacy via this review. And, I do want to highlight, that this is the best source anybody has found. I want to be clear that this doesn't mean I don't think it has a place in the article, but that it doesn't go very far to help notability for an advocacy organization to review a film about one of the very subjects in that organization's wheelhouse. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per the film itself meeting WP:NF. 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. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.