Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swindon 105.5


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Swindon 105.5

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has no third party sources that ascertain the notability of this station. Even if there are reliable sources for this station, this is still of border line notability. User talk:Ron Travolta who works at the station has requested deletion of this article as it has received a lot of WP:BLP vandalism. In the case of WP:Borderline biographies deletion is often carried out at the request of the subject. I believe that this should be extended to borderline articles of this nature, which are mainly about people, so suggest Delete Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The general rule for US-based stations is if it's an FCC-licensed station, it's considered notable, no matter the size. How does that guideline apply to the rest of the world? I'd be inclined to say this station would meet the guideline. DarkAudit (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. If it is a licensed broadcast radio station then I think that makes it eligible for an article. That said, this article has a lot of unreferenced cruft and should be pruned without mercy down to what is supported by reliable references. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up - According to the article, it's a "fully licensed by media and communications regulator Ofcom", which I would assume grants it notability. But, as I said, if it does stay, it needs to be cleaned up, and there's probably some that could go. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - have had a bit of a clean-up and added a couple of references. Could probably do with someone a little more brutal than myself to make it all Wiki qualit,. I just don't like deleting other people's work... Jnthn0898 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The comments so far have been in favour of keeping the page, albeit with some editing... can someone tell me how to protect the page from constant vandalism if it has to remain? Ron Travolta (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The normal way: Keep it on your watchlist. Undo inappropriate edits. Warn repeat offenders. Report any regular troublemakers (or anybody who makes a single egregious edit, such as libel). Request semi-protection if IP vandalism gets out of hand. Don't worry. We can keep it under control. Now that the article has had all of us looking at it and watchlisting it, it isn't going to be easy for vandals to make their edits stick. Once vandals realise this they tend to lose interest and slope off. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 19 November 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.