Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIMR

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CIMR

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

Doesn't appear to have sources after a Google search. Coin945 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any independent WP:RS either for this unsourced page. There are some mentions of a preaching programme but that's not enough to establish notability. ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Canada issues the CI** callsign, not Ireland. Actually, the UK and Ireland don't issue callsigns at all, period. The way this is written, this appears to be a pirate station, which wouldn't be notable under NMEDIA anyway. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:34 on March 4, 2018 (UTC)
Delete. To be fair, a station in another country can still use an initialism that begins with the letter C as its name. Yes, this station's name looks like a Canadian call sign, but that doesn't inherently make it an impossible name for a station in Ireland — stations in Ireland can still brand themselves with a name that looks like another country's call sign format, so its name isn't in and of itself a deletion criterion. That said, "temporary licensed" stations are not granted an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA, especially when there isn't even a reliable source present to support that there was a temporary license at all. One of the biggest problems here, in fact, is that as written I'm hard pressed to identify whether this is an active station that operates today, or a defunct station whose article just never got converted to the past tense, again precisely because of the lack of any reliable sources. To be eligible for an article, a station like this would need to be referenced to reliable source coverage about it — even a permanent licensed station still requires some evidence of reliable source coverage before it actually passes NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can reference it properly, but nothing here entitles it to keep a completely unreferenced article just because it exists or existed. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2018 (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.