From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 10:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Secret Adventures

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Secret Adventures (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not remotely notable. Only sources cited are IMDb and PureFlix, no reliable sources found using Google or DuckDuckGo. Dronebogus ( talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus ( talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus ( talk) 03:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm the primary author of the article. This series has been very difficult to track down sources since they were a flash-in-the-pan in the late 90s in American Christian (and especially Evangelical) circles. Very little about them got on the internet since their market was niche and a bit too early. The name also is very generic so it makes it hard to track down. I did find a few more sources that I will add, but most of the article content (currently) references the videos themselves which are on Pureflix in their entirety. (You can also find some pirated versions on YouTube).

Some sources I was able to dig up by searching on Google "Secret Adventures Taweel":

Justin Tokke ( talk) 05:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Found one more: Baptist Press article from 1993, which shows the explicitly Christian origins of the show. http://media.sbhla.org.s3.amazonaws.com/7636,09-Sep-1993.PDF Justin Tokke ( talk) 05:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply


1. Chicago Tribune: throwaway mention, doesn’t count

2. Baltimore Sun: Not a terrible source, but not great either

3. Billboard: Decent source

4. UPI: Good source

5. Goodreads: Not a reliable source, doesn’t count

6. WorldCat: I don’t think that counts as an actual source

7. Company site: Primary source, doesn’t count

8. BCDb: I guess that passes as a source?

9. Baptist Press: Decent source (a page number would have been nice though)

With the four definitely usable sources it’s at the point where I wouldn’t have bothered nominating it to begin with, but I’d still like a clear consensus on whether this passes. In the future I’d recommend adding reliable sources in quickly, because unsourced or weakly sourced articles about obscure works tend to come across as non-notable by default. Dronebogus ( talk) 07:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: The Billboard source is very good, and the UPI is good as well. I think this passes GNG. The sources should be added to the article. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep meets GNG-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 05:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Secret_Adventures&oldid=996396181"