Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TimeShift Trivia

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. WP:SOFTDELETE per sparse participation. Deor (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TimeShift Trivia

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

Article about a purported Canadian television series, relying entirely on deadlinked primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage to attest that it qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Searches on both Google and ProQuest both failed to turn up any concrete evidence whatsoever of its existence, to boot — not a good sign for a series that purportedly aired on one of the country's major commercial television networks — meaning that the content here is completely unverifiable. Delete unless some actual sourcing can be located to grant it notability under WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N ~~and also appears to fail WP:V~~. After several searches, not finding any coverage in (independent) reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment above, added info in parentheses. Found a primary source that provides verification ([1]), but still no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:18, 4 November 2014 (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.