Talk:Adventures in Odyssey

Notability

Addressing the issue of notability, I think Adventures in Odyssey is definitely notable considering that it is broadcast on radio stations nationwide every weekday. The article could definitely be improved but it does contains useful information, nonetheless. Chips5ahoy (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the series is notable. But not just because it is widely broadcasted, but because of the many (several independent) sources & spin-off series it has impacted/created. If no one gives a reason not to, I will be removing the "notable" parameter from {{articleissues}} sometime soon, as notability has been established in many ways. TheAE talk/sign 17:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This argument appears to be based upon WP:BIGNUMBER, not WP:NOTE, and so is an invalid rationale for removing the notability tag. This topic does not appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as it is almost entirely sourced to non-independent sources), and I have seen no "objective evidence" (per WP:NOBJ) of "spin-off series it has impacted/created". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with Hrafn. This program, no matter how widely it's broadcast, appears to have attracted no attention from unrelated third-party newspapers, magazines, books, etc. A direct counterargument would be that commercials are widely broadcast, too, but they aren't generally notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hrafn said, "...it is almost entirely sourced to non-independent sources." This just isn't true. Five of the fourteen sources are self-published/affiliated (1, 2, 5-7). The other nine sources are to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Radio World, The New York Times, Mid-Continent Public Library (2), Adventure Gamers, School Library Journal, Wired News and Deseret News – all of which are independent, reliable, published sources that show clear notability. TheAE talk/sign 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to say that deleting the article in its entirety might be a logistical mistake because articles for some of the notable voice actors referenced for the Adventures in Odyssey show (e.g., Walker Edmiston, Corey Burton, Pamela Hayden) link to this article. If the voice credits on these actors are valid, then having somewhere to point the voice credits provides less redundant explanation. That may not be Wikipedia policy, but it would be nice from a reader's point of view. Hampshire2004 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:GNG states:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

There are 14 sources listed for this article (one twice):

• Non-independent sources: Christian Newswire, JohnCampbellMusic.com, WhitsEnd.org (3) = 5
• Bare mention in a primary source: Mid-Continent Public Library (2)
• Verifying two short paragraphs on the peripheral topic of spin-off products, rather than the program itself: 9 (2 of which already covered as non-independent, 2 as bare/primary)

Independent sources, that are not both primary and bare-mention, covering the core topic of the program: 2 -- Inland Valley Daily Bulletin & Radio World. The former appears to be on the topic of Chick tracts, not primarily on this program (but as its behind a paywall, I can't tell how much coverage it gives this topic). The latter gives it 3 (not particularly long) paragraphs. Is this "significant coverage"? I don't think so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you do not consider Christian Newswire to be an independant source? You may be correct, but I was unable to find any information that would suggest any affiliation with the Adventures in Odyssey radio program or Focus On the Family.

As to the question of coverage in general, a quick search of the Google News archive returns quite a large number of results- many mentioning the show peripherally, but several from reputable news sources, such as the LA Times, which appear to cover it directly. (I could not verify them due to pay restrictions).

My strong inclination is that this program is indeed notable if for no other reason than its position as a major division of the Focus on the Family organization which has received an intense amount of media coverage over the years from both sympathetic and antagonistic sources. Several of the articles I found that mentioned AiO were articles about FotF. AiO was of sufficient notability from the view of those articles to deserve special mention while many other divisions of the organization were not. (A highly circumstantial argument perhaps, but substantial when combined with other arguments for notability.) Please understand that I am not arguing for an inherited notability as that is clearly against the guidelines; only that the way it is covered in relation to its parent suggests that it has its own notability.

Finally, the question of notability may very well be irrelevant. See WP:NRVE:

Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation.

This article could well be viewed as part of the Focus on the Family article which links to it and thus does not require separate notability in order to be preserved. In fact, the organization of the FotF article strongly suggests just such an interpretation. Jmbpiano (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is tendentious, as there is no indication that this article was created, from Focus on the Family "for formatting and display purposes" or "ease of formatting and navigation". In any case, "is often accepted" does not imply that it must be accepted, particularly when the relationship (both editorial and topical) isn't very close. In fact, given the paucity of secondary-source third-party content, this topic could be easily accommodated in FotF as a single paragraph on the radio show and its spin-off games -- it would only mean pruning material that is neither directly relevant to FotF nor secondary-source third-party. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I would point out that the essay you linked to is a discussion of the editing, creation or deletion of articles for the purpose of promoting the editor's bias and without respect for NPOV or significance. As my only involvement with this article is what you see here, on the talk page, I would submit that such a statement could be perceived as irrelevant and malicious name-calling. However, I shall, in the interest of constructive discourse, assume such was not your intent.

Since you have brought up the point, I will address it (admittedly at the risk of placing undue weight upon it). I fully admit that I posted my defense of this article from a position of strong personal bias and that my strong feelings on this matter may have well resulted in clouding my judgment and belaboring too many less substantial arguments instead of focusing on the most relevant. My bias was not, as you might reasonably believe, any particular belief that the radio program itself is terribly valuable. To the contrary, I am not a fan of the program or of Focus on the Family. I have heard the program on occasion (perhaps five episodes in as many years) but do not have any great love for it. I do believe from my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience of very rarely meeting anyone who identifies themselves as an American and a Christian (not an insignificant percentage of the world's population) who is not at least aware of the program that it is notable enough to warrant inclusion (as much as say, Amos 'n' Andy- a program I dare say a majority of America's youth is unfamiliar with).

No- my bias is not in the preservation of this article itself but in the preservation of the class of information on Wikipedia as it represents. The reason I even discovered this article in the first place was because I was looking for information on one of the voice actors who performed on the program, Hal Smith. Reading up on him lead me to discover this article and also to learn many interesting facts about the links between other actors from The Andy Griffith Show and this radio series. All of this information is obtainable from other sources, of course, but the way Wikipedia gathers it all into a digested form results in ease of learning and the gaining of new insights on the topic that I would have been unlikely to invest the effort in researching in its absence. In other words, Wikipedia was performing exactly as an encyclopedia should- promoting learning and providing an introduction on topics that can be researched in greater depth elsewhere. My bias is against the needless deletion of information from Wikipedia because a certain group deems it "insufficiently notable". Your suggestion of reducing this topic to a "single paragraph" would likely "prune" all of the information that I found valuable and am certain others would as well.

Please- forgive my verbosity, but as I am freely willing to admit, I feel very strongly on this point and do not believe such opinion is inappropriate in a discussion of the merits of retaining an article on Wikipedia.

Now, let me briefly speak to your assertion that there is 'no indication that this article was created, from Focus on the Family 'for [...] ease of formatting and navigation'". I fail to see the relevance as to whether the article was originally created for that purpose or not. If you look at the FotF, article, specifically section 2.2, it certainly appears to be currently providing that function, irregardless of the original editor's intent for the article. One of the beautiful features of the wiki system is that such relationships grow organically, over time. Additionally, though there is no mandate that such articles must be accepted, I would argue that in this case it should be accepted as there is enough valuable information in the article as to make it somewhat unwieldy if merged into the main FotF article itself.

As I have written more on this topic than was perhaps wise, I will now retire from this aspect of the discussion. If you wish to have the last word, you may take it with my blessing. The others here may judge for themselves which of us is correct. I sincerely hope they will not judge me too harshly for the length of my posts. <g> Jmbpiano (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has been updated with multiple independent sources and several indicators of its popularity. This appears to be a case where "an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." Logicalbookshelf147 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4413:8661:A89F:D4B0:BB35:2129 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism?

At the bottom of the list of characters, one is listed by the name of Sillia Mills, allegedly voiced by Jenna Mize and appearing on the show from 2005-present. As a long-time listener and fan, I can confirm that no such character does exist or ever has. I don't have many edits under my belt and don't want to get in trouble, so can somebody please fix this? Alliemacaroni (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made this change. Glman99 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)