Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scramble (magazine)


 * 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. The burden of proof is on editors favouring the retention of the article to show that it is notable or should for some other reason be kept. That has not been achieved here unfortunately. Skomorokh 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Scramble (magazine)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable magazine. No indication as to what the circulation is, but it is apparently the house organ of an aviation society that is not notable enough for its own article here. No references aside from the magazine's own website. Google turns up very little relevant about it, other than this article and the web site. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Plenty of mentions and discussions in blogs and forums related to aircraft spotting but the only reliable source I could find was a brief mention . -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just check which pages on WP link back (used Scramble as a resource) 165.72.200.11 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That is not a measure of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Info appears to be valid, and nothing is to be gained by deleting an accurate article, at some point in time someone may need it I think if the author can find enough references to provec the article is accurate and notable then it should be kept,unless that happens i think it should be deleted .-- VVLosVegas 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Validity is not synonymous with notability, which is the issue here. I'm a valid person, and at some point in time someone somewhere might need me, but I'm not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, regardless of whether it's useful and how many articles link to it, this fails notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the more important aviation societies, a book publisher and a respected military aviation website that has been cited in Wikipedia articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please cite one or two of those articles so that we can verify this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.scramble.nl tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.