Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No call, no show

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No call, no show[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006 perma-stub for a business jargon phrase with no indication of being a topic notable enough for an article. Source searches certainly don't seem to indicate that it is. — Scott • talk 11:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable as I've heard it multiple times and seems to me that this is notable as a term that is frequently used in employment.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Just a colloquialism for "unexcused absence"; the rest is a somewhat rambling bit about workplace discipline which is surely a fork of some other article. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No refs, no keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and lack of sources. ansh666 04:30, 26 March 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.