Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kol TSion HaLokhemet

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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kol TSion HaLokhemet[edit]

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

uncited material, non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. True, its uncited. But has a wp:before search been done to see if there are sources out there? For example, looking at the sources here and here?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lots of sources (including at the above two searches, for starters). I would suggest the nom withdraw his nomination, and follow wp:before next time prior to nominating an article for AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, such as more careful placement of references, which, at the moment, do not always match the information in the preceding sentence. But this is a historic station, possibly a first of its type, and I see no reason for deleting the article.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good point as to the article need work. The fault is all mine. Fearing people might not look at the refs, I toss 1-2 dozen in w/some text. Where you cannot see them as supporting the text, it may be those articles that don't show all of the text on the page. I had thought I faithfully reflected what I could see (which in some books is more than you can see from the ref). But my additions were not artful--everyone should feel free to take a crack at fixing it if they like. No pride of authorship at all on this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with all the sources added it seems notable indeed. Shlomke (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - numerous sources attest to notability of well known historical radio station Lovely day350 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - improve and (if possible) expand. Seems like there are plenty of usable sources to demonstrate notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:28, 4 January 2010 (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.