Talk:List of Adventures in Odyssey sagas

Original research
In the articleissues template, it includes original research as an issue. Still, in almost every section, it has original research in it. Is there any reason why we need to have a general one, and several more? The entire article needs RS, so I think the note in articleissues is enough. May I remove the duplicated ones? Thanks.  TheAE  talk / sign  01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that there isn't even an 'unreliable source listed in ELs' (let alone a WP:RS cited) for the individual sagas tagged, it would seem more reasonable to rather remove their whole sections, until such time as the existence of these 'sagas' can be reliably established. I can find no RSes on any of these purported sagas, and for "Eugene's Conversion saga" & "Connie's Conversion saga" the only web-hits are to this article & the AIO wiki. For "'Trandy' saga", this article is the only hit. Beyond this, third party sources are of course required for continued survival of the article. HrafnTalkStalk 03:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Implicit in the above was the reasoning that it is legitimate to flag worst-offending sections of the article, as well as the article as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:V
WP:V states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Where an article cites no sources, it is therefore perfectly legitimate (and does not require an AfD) to be WP:BOLD and redirect it. As you are contesting that redirect, I will not attempt to reimpose it. However I do not intend to allow the unverifiable material (removed by the redirect) back into the article until such time as WP:RSs are found to verify it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you both cannot find RSs to support any material in this article & continue to object to a redirect, I will simply renominate that article for AfD, as explicitly permited by the earlier AfD close: "Closing this as keep for now, no prejudice on a consistent nomination." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)