Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Free Scotland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio Free Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable pirate radio station; completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only 12 gnews hits in 60 years. [1] LibStar (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google doesn't have 60 years of news sources indexed. Please see WP:GOOGLE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Google News hits are from Scotland's main newspapers, concerning a period when there was a perceived/real exclusion of what is now the governing party in Scotland from broadcasting media in the county. Agree about the unreferenced element of the article, though this can be fixed using reference material such as Gazetteer For Scotland [2]. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Mentions in 52 books in Google Books; key to some understanding of the Scottish National Party during its existence. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to think that the material on the modern thing should go. The earlier version might be merged into History of the Scottish National Party as seems that there's not a great deal can be said about it other than the fact that it existed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2009 (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.