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 as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion - including the IP nominator, who suggested editing or merging but not deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CB radio in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nominated by unregistered user 82.152.193.148 who placed the following reason on the talk page:

"Almost completely original research. Few references, full of opinions and plain rubbish (talk about "swearing in", for example). Better off reduced and merged into the main CB article."

I wish to abstain, as I am only completing the AfD nomination for the aforementioned unregistered user. --tgheretford (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as references multiple reliable third-party sources like this this one show it meets the notability test. That said, the article is in serious need of an overhaul and after the AfD it needs in-depth attention but AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has sources, even if not specific citations to those sources, and it's no less encyclopedic than CB usage in the United States. Actually, it covers the CB phenomenon of the mid-70s better than the other articles. There's surprisingly little about the fad, which I blame on (a) Most Wikipedians were born after 1976 and (b) Anyone who used phrases like "10-4 good buddy" probably thinks Wikipedia is a venereal disease. In any event, I don't know why we should assist an unregistered user in getting an article deleted, since an unregistered user isn't allowed to create an article. Mandsford (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup. It definitely needs to be reduced and footnoted, but not merged in with the main article on CB which is very long; as noted above even the U.S. where CB has a much longer history is split to a separate article. Perhaps if there was an article for "CB radio in Europe" it could go there but it isn't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and sourceable. Needs work though.--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (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.