Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Adventures in Odyssey sagas


 * 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. Having a bunch of AfDs on the same topic is hard to handle. Closing this as keep for now, no prejudice on a consistent nomination. Tone 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Adventures in Odyssey sagas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: unsourced, unencyclopedic WP:OR WP:FANCRUFT, accumulated solely from articles already under AfD at Articles for deletion/Jack Allen (Adventures in Odyssey) (making the creation of this article an act of questionable good faith). No third-party acknowledgement that these self-proclaimed "sagas" even exist. HrafnTalkStalk 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   —HrafnTalkStalk 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Premature listing, speedy close suggested One AFD on the same material at a time, please--doing it this way is a sure route to confusion. After it is decided what to do with the other articles, we can deal with this one. I consider it totally inappropriate to try to foreclose the possibility of dealing with another set of afds via merging, by trying to delete the article they would be merged to while the others are still under consideration. DGG (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would note that you also demanded the closure of the underlying AfD, because of American Eagle's 'proposal' (as part of which he illegitimately attempted to denominate the articles that have been aggregated to this one). As that AfD had already become complex, and as this article contains not a shred of notability, I nominated this article separately to avoid complicating matters. HrafnTalkStalk 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would further point out that it is not this AfD that is premature, but the article's creation, which is a clear pre-emption of the decision of the underlying AfD. HrafnTalkStalk 05:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep/Speedy Close This, as it is a list of fictional works. Sources for fiction are few and far between, but that does not diminish notability, similar to the plot summary of a film article. It is not original research, it is all factual information, not "fan cruft" as you say. All content here is notable and verifiable, but I'd probably need a few books to do that (like Adventures in Odyssey... anyways, Very Strong Keep, no reason to delete. And, I am trying to work on these articles. ♥ American Eagle  ( talk ) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No third party notice of the even the existence of these sagas = no notability whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk 04:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the two works at Adventures in Odyssey are published by Tyndale House (the publisher of the AiO 'Eugene Sings!' albums) and Focus on the Family (the radio show's broadcaster), neither has any intellectual independence, and thus do nothing whatsoever for notability (either of the show or of these "sagas"). HrafnTalkStalk 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am right to assume you will soon be AfDing Minor characters in The Circle Opens, List of The Clique series characters, List of Dimension X episodes, Dark Adventure Radio Theatre: At the Mountains of Madness. Dark Adventure Radio Theatre: The Dunwich Horror, The Brighter Day (soap opera), The Radio Adventures of Dr. Floyd, The Thirteenth Floor (comic strip), and List of characters in The Chronicles of Narnia? If not, why so? ♥ American Eagle  ( talk ) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Where (i) there is no third party coverage of the subsidiary topics & (ii) the notability of the base article is marginal in terms of third party coverage, I will most certainly contemplate nominating it. HrafnTalkStalk 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would further point out that even the series' own website only lists two of the sagas in this list (Applesauce Saga & Novacom Saga, plus a third unlisted saga: Darkness Before Dawn), this leaves even the existence of the Blackgaard saga, Eugene's Search for his Father, Eugene and Katrina, Eugene's Conversion saga, Connie's Conversion saga & "Trandy" saga as pure WP:OR (in addition to being non-notable). HrafnTalkStalk 07:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is not true. First of all, it isn't "the series' own website," it is run independently (at the bottom it says, "...This site is not in any way affiliated with Focus on the Family..."). Their official website is WhitsEnd.org, which doesn't have very much information on it. Secondly, "Darkness Before Dawn" is the Blackgaard saga, it is just the name for the main episodes in it. Thirdly, AIOLib.com is an outdated website ("New Stuff: 7/19/2008"), so doesn't have things recent. AIOWiki.com has articles on all these sagas, which is updated and recent.  TheAE  talk / sign  18:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If AIOLib.com is not the official website, then it is hard to perceive it as being a WP:RS. If it were an official site, it could contribute (as a reliable primary source) to WP:V if not WP:NOTE, however a self-published fansite would most certainly not be a WP:RS and thus could not contribute to either -- leaving the entire topic as one of WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk 04:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment perhaps  it might have been a good idea to have simply proposed a search for further documentation  of the unlisted or borderline material--and then a merge of those portions with inadequate support--rather than the course taken of trying to delete everything. What can be easily accomplished without much controversy should be done first. Trying instead to do everything at once leads to difficulties. and the explicit statement that one is considering the nominating the base article also, even though there is some 3rd party support for it, can lead to an unfortunate impression--but I cannot see calling it  a bias against Christianity. AE, it never helps to  take proposed deletions as a personal attack.  DGG (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed.  TheAE  talk / sign  18:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep program is notable, and thus information on individual installments are ok. It does need more sources and needs worded in a better tone. Tgreach (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that List of Adventures in Odyssey episodes already exists, which provides "information on individual installments". Do you think both a list of episodes and of sagas is needed? HrafnTalkStalk 04:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About the wording, I have to work on that. When I merged them, the original articles had much more like it. Plus it can be expanded – there are many more large sagas.  TheAE  talk / sign  22:09, 6 January 2009 (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.