Talk:Paws & Tales

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

No sources, no notability, no encyclopaedic content

It is almost two months since I attempted to have this article WP:PRODed, and still there is no sources (let alone third party sources demonstrating significant coverage), no assertion of notability, and little but unencyclopaedic 'in universe' content. Any reason why I shouldn't AfD it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm tired of being the article rescuer. *shrug* I'll get to it tomorrow. You may AFD is you want, but I plan to work on it. TheAE talk/sign 09:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hrafn seems to think that this is someone else's problem. If he wants sources &c then he should provide them. I have just demonstrated how it is done. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden: no indication of notability, nothing but unencyclopaedic WP:FANCRUFT, so why the hades should I want to make it 'my problem'? You have just demonstrated that you you can find an obscure and rather marginal source for the most trivial and banal statement in the article: "Paws & Tales is a Christian production for children by Insight for Living and Chuck Swindoll" -- that does next to nothing to raise it to wikipedia standards. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still having this discussion? There's always room for improvement, but there ARE sources listed, and a lot better than the average Wikipedia article. The issue of notability has been addressed: 450 outlets plus untold internet listeners is pretty wide coverage, not to mention the animated series, especially considering that Wikipedia maintains articles on single characters, or complete episode lists and synopses out of other story arcs of comparable notability. -Blueguy 65.0.221.140 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(i)We're not "still having this discussion" -- the above is 6 months old. (ii) The sourcing (which only covers the first paragraph) is at best highly marginal -- to the book that it is based on, their producer, a puff piece in the Oklahoma Baptist Messenger, and a couple of bare "announcements" of the videos' existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the Series

According to Insight for Living, they do not have the funds to continue the series and therefore there are no plans to do so. 2601:603:401:7230:0:0:0:F43E (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]