Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As Time Goes By (Canadian TV series)


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As Time Goes By (Canadian TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Found no coverage of this TV series in reliable sources. This TV series thus fails the notability guidelines. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the wayback machine version of the Queen's University database in external links no longer seems to be working, but the Canadian Communications Foundation ref, which was an initiative of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters in association with Athabasca University, is certainly a reliable source. However, WP:TVSERIES does go on to state "a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage." This is one that may take some news archive digging in papers of the day. Neutral Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can find more solid sources. I searched all three databases that I can access for Canadian newspaper coverage dated 1967 — but apart from one brief blurb about its premiere in a "this week's television highlights" column (which I did add to the article), I was able to find nothing but its appearance in television listings grids otherwise. I will say, for the record, that as far as I know the Queen's University Film and Media directory was drawn at least partially from a book that would count as a valid replacement source if this series were covered in it, but I don't know its publication details in order to locate verification of that. And while the Canadian Communications Foundation is generally a reliable source, the entry isn't particularly substantive in this case. So yeah, as things stand right now we just don't really have the depth of sourcing required to make this keepable — recreation would be acceptable in the future if somebody can find stronger sources for it than I'm finding. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, there you go: Bearcat has worked a great deal in this area and if this is his determination, fine by me. Change to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - For lack of sources and previous arguments. --Rogerx2 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing in-depth to establish notability. Vile Jeremy (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2017 (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.