Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Cohen (media)

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cohen (media)[edit]

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

Minor entertainment figure. No evidence of notability; no substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 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 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - Hello all, I think I have mistakenly put his whole name in as IAN DAVID COHEN in the original title - none of the links use his full name and he does not use his full name on air, I am trying to get a 'page move' but there is another Ian Cohen (politician) which is a problem being administered as we speak - once that is cleared up you will see many more links that will match his status - DO NOT DELETE - thanks BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdchill (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A single blurb in a source about leaving a network is apparently all there is. Nothing else out there to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once again we need to be clear that Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the subject, not by the subject. Years on television and radio don't mean much around here unless someone else (an independent reliable sources) has given those years more than a passing mention somewhere. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Draft: namespace As it stands this article doesn't have a hope of staying, but we have the Draft: namespace and we can give the author a crack at improving it in peace and quiet there. GIven peace and quiet, if it can be improved then it will be improved. If it withers on the vine there instead no harm will be done. Never forget the Draft: namespace as an AfD outcome. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment This looks very much like a draft that was accepted too soon, though the draft that was accepted has far fewer problems than the article does right now. I'm pinging Mjs1991 to let them know it is being discussed here. They were the reviewer who accepted the draft. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure how it came about of me accepting the article, when the sources are bad and it should still be a draft.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 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.