Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture

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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventism in popular culture

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:SIGCOV. No secondary sourcing contextualizing it simply a list of WP:SYNTH of Primary source material. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, yes, I can see there is some synthesis, but the lead is a good summary, and it is well-cited. It can be fixed, but that is not a reason to bring it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The two articles by Julius Nam are secondary sources from a well qualified source. Several are secondary references but admittedly not detailed scholarly analyses, like the references in Adherents.com, Dialogue, and the light piece by the editor of Spectrum. Admittedly over half are primary sources. Disclosure: I am the original creator of the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very significant in popular culture, and adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and in no danger of becoming a quote farm. Keeps the chaff out of Seventh-day Adventism Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2011 (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.