Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Area Radio Monitoring 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Area Radio Monitoring Association

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Lacks clear notability, no 3rd party sources, and fails WP:CLUB. Creational edit [1] says that this was deleted some time in the past as well. Maintained by someone close to the organization as per talk page, possible violation of WP:OWN. I propose the article be deleted. ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user adding the tag did so after give and take on other pages regarding these tags. I oppose the deletion and removed the tags because the information presented in the article is factual (no evidence that it isn't has been presented) and informational. Since the subject is a subset of a niche hobby, but one of the largest of its kind, there just is not a lot of ways to source it other than to Google the name and link to other random mentions. I will be happy to add these useless links to retain the article if that is what you want. Hope this helps satisfy the desires. N9jig (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what the problem is.

CARMA has been well established for many many years and is an Active Radio Monitoring Association Even with Members from well outside of Chicago --- I OPPOSE THE DELETION ecps92 —Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yikes i do not know how to do this...

Hello all, as a member of this club for many years. I find it strange it is getting called out on "notability". This is a simple informational posting about the club. Nothing to fancy, not promoting a for profit something something, just saying this club is out there.

-- I think the goal here is to force more people add content to the wiki and this [deletion request] just forces that to happen. Kind of a strange way to make people add more content to a wiki. Kinda like getting poked with a stick.

So, so be it. I plan on being more involved in adding content. I oppose the deletion jd

Have a happy/safe new year 01-01-2017 03:20 UTC, 12-31-2016 21:20 local

IN DEO SPERAMUS CETEROS OMNES OBSERVAMUS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C58D:1BA0:FDB6:FB31:BA74:E691 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- I oppose the deletion

--- I oppose the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.113.48 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose the deletionEric K9LGE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:D00:C0B0:F167:13B5:B85A:6E0E (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability - I can't find ANY third party media coverage indicating why this particular club is different from any other group of radio operators. There's also not a single valid keep argument.Timtempleton (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching for independent coverage, I have found a book mention, [2], this [3], and a Chicago Tribune mention [4]. Probably not enough to be considered significant. The size of the club helps, but there is just not enough to meet WP:CLUB. MB 03:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job finding even those - you dug hard.Timtempleton (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--- I oppose the deletion W9ARG 01 09 2017 9:30AM CST

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2017 (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.