Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Radio Association


 * 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   no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Student Radio Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 15.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge, selectively to Student Radio Awards which does receive reasonable coverage in 3rd party sources, unlike this one RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep or keep WP:SK Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states at WP:JUSTAPOLICY, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why."  Besides there being no explanation for how this article fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG, there are three sources already in the article, and one click on the "books" link above shows more.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid speedy keep rationale. You may find the nominator's argument underwhelming, but there is no doubt that they, at the very least, gave at least some argument for deletion. Your frequent overly bureaucratic attempts to put unproductive roadblocks into discussions can be kind of disruptive; it would be lovely if you would stop.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a personal attack, accusing me of disruption for quoting a respected essay for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The nomination could certainly be a bit less linky. Let's stick to the merits of the article shall we?.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (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.