Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Focus with Martin Sheen

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Focus with Martin Sheen

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

Apparently this is a scam, per http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/production-firms-stir-suspicion-among-networks-would-be-clients/2012/12/26/d6eda81a-4a04-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html Elizium23 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the above, I've nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3. Ansh6 6 6 06:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if you read the article provided above, though, it doesn't actually suggest the series is a hoax, only that it hasn't aired yet. The conduct of the producers has "stirred suspicion" but that's not the same thing as being a "blatant hoax". The article itself includes coverage like this which simply suggests that a small group of producers (having received agreement from Sheen to appear) have been working hard to promote it. I certainly don't think it's anywhere near notable yet and the article should be deleted. But we should delete it via AFD, I think, lest we speedy delete something as a hoax that turns out not to be. Stalwart111 07:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient notability /notoriety. I was tempted to speedily delete as spam for a scam but this discussion can be left to run. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since speedy declined. Not notable if real; if fake, the article as it stood before recent overhaul would have presented it as real, potentially doing harm to people out in the real world. Ansh6 6 6 16:42, 5 August 2013 (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.