Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio First Termer
- 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. --Tikiwont 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio First Termer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
not notable, conflict of interest (self-written), advertising. (basically WP:VSCA) Dougie WII 06:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The radio station was first used in Vietman, then in the gulf first time around, then the second time around. So its a well established institution. Article needs re-written and tarted up. scope_creep 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The radio station existed only for 21 days, and only one of the people involved in it (apparently the author) went to Iraq, and only once. I still think this is more advertising for new commercial endeavors than encyclopedic content. - Dougie WII 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems valuable as a historical curiosity. Eliminating the current projects and focusing only on the historical information in the article can solve the conflict of interest problem. --Phaethon 0130 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if the approach Phaethon suggests is followed.Alberon 10:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for historical interest. There is nothing absolutely wrong with self-written articles. digitalemotion 11:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. All pirate radio stations have a story; some are notable because of the circumstances in which they were set up. Mandsford 12:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phaethon 0130 made substantial changes to the article, I have no problem with the way it is now written -- Dougie WII 16:05, 7 November 2007 (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.