Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time and Again (TV program)
- 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 redirect to
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
]
Time and Again (TV program)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Article has been unsourced since 2009(!), so for almost 10 years. I've looked and I can find no reliable
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to chatter) 08:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 14:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect or Keep - there is some sourcing out there ([1], [2], [3], [4]) to establish this and satisfy WP:TVSHOW, but I'm fine with a redirect until someone wants to expand it beyond an unreferenced stub. -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)]
- Look to be incidental mentions, not "in depth" coverage. I agree that a redirect is the best option in this case – I don't think there will ever be enough to justify a standalone article for this particular show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 3 February 2019 (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.