Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UVB-76

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 strong keep. Closing early because of overwhelming snow strong keeps. No deletion votes other than nominator, and strong keep votes outnumber keep votes. (non-admin close) —CodeHydro 12:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UVB-76 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Notability problems of shortwave radio station; 6 of 12 references are newsletters/postings of various radio groups; 2 more are cached copies of an unreferenced and archived Geocities page that is not attributable to anyone; in any case, all of these are Self-Published Works by people who would not be evident as experts in their field, nor writing about themselves. Remaining sources include links to purported recordings of the station, a picture of the station (which do not themselves give an indication of notability), and a book whose mention of the station seems to only be a generalized mention. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Brought to AfD without PROD, as I feel it would be 100% contested based on some opinions in discussion on the talk page. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Although single self-published sources are not sufficient to show notability, the huge amount of coverage in blogs etc. indicates notability. Also covered in wired.co.uk.--memset (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, I have added a number of other references from mainstream news sources from around the world. It is quite clear that the subject of this article is of interest to both the news and the social community. Silverseren^C 16:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UVB-76 article is available in twelve languages. Are we to consider deleting them all? A-Day ^(c)_(t) 00:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The station obviously exists. there should be a wiki page. recordings of the station have links. It is notable because it still exists, can be heard currently, and was within the past month doing strange things. Theorizing about what it does and why it exists should have STRONG citations, as that is where original research problems come in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genewitch (talk • contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The UVB-76 article references ABC.es and Wired.co.uk, among others. There's an original research tag, but no one discusses what this original research is specifically. Claims that the article merits deletion on verifiability, notability, and original research grounds should be taken skeptically. The article seems to strike a passionate cord with some editors, who engage in edit wars with others, for example over mirror links. It's probably best to let the article settle down and mature. A-Day ^(c)_(t) 22:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag myself. I don't believe there's any OR left in the article at this point, with most of it being referenced. Silverseren^C 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is just a humorous, not to be taken seriously, comment of mine, but maybe the people that are trying (and have been trying for a while) to get this article deleted or certain information removed are Russian spies who don't want info about this station getting out more than it is, because it actually is a "dead hand" station. :P Silverseren^C 23:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Problems with sourcing does not make this station any less notable. --Kristian 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The sourcing issues most likely arise from the fact that its broadcasting from a military district and that it isn't a radio station as such, its a restricted use service that no one ones much about apart from having to do with the military. Peachey88 ^{(T · C)} 04:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- much improved, seems to have no problem with verifiability or notability. -- The Anome (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Strong Keep. --BBF3 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is one of the most famous shortwave stations in history. The updated article with sources is enough to attest notability. — Kieff | Talk 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- While the references to UVB-76 supposed purpose and origin can be disputed and presented material is original research, the very existance of the UVB-76 is undisputable. As the nature of this shortwave station, it is geographically located in Russia and no official information has been ever given out. Therefore all the references can and will be only speculative to various degrees, but if referenced accordingly are reflecting the nature of this radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laid2 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As per previous arguments. – Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As per previous arguments
• Strong Keep. As per previous arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.246.202 (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As per previous arguments as well. Hear hear. Miquelon (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As per previous arguments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.235.253 (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would normally have an opinion about this kind of article but I will decline from arguing any particulars in this case since my attention was only brought here by reddit attempting to stack the discussion. Fortunately it doesn't seem to matter in this case. Cheers. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I just read this article the other day... I don't understand why someone would even suggest it should be deleted. - ^You've been _{taught by} FluckED 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD has been posted on reddit.com where people were encouraged to "vote" for keep. Delta Tango • Talk 02:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter at this point anyways, since there aren't any outstanding delete votes. 128.194.29.89 (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently logged out for some reason. Stupid internet. :/ Silverseren^C 04:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Previous arguments summarize my points. I have nothing more to add, but do concur with above comments, and recognize that this discussion is not a "vote" taken for keeping the article. TeamZissou (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This story and accompanying station have been in the news lately. I feel given its recent coverage on wire.co.uk qualifies it to stay.
• Strong Keep Nice try, Vladimir Putin.
• Strong Keep.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.57.12 (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notability is clearly estabilished in the article.  Grue  07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per previous arguments. ಠ ರೃ (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep.Dpilat (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There is no reason to delete it! SaltFishCZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltFishCZ (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. [1] --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As per notability arguments established above. Richsage (talk) 11:37, 14 September 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.