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 no consensus‎. I don't see an explicit consensus to delete the article; however there is a disagreement over whether or not to merge this article with another, and if so, how the two articles should be combined. However, all of that can be done by regular editing, and does not need an AfD open to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Community Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not cite any sources nor assert notability. It is difficult to find sources for this as searches generally surface general references to "Muslim community radio" stations rather than this specific broadcaster, but I cannot see any reference to it ever having been a licensed long-term broadcasting station within London. It appears to have operated a number of short-term licences. Flip Format (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Islam, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The station has broadcast RSLs during Ramadan for many years and this demonstrates notability. Also, the article does contain references, although I feel that more should be sourced to further strengthen this article's place on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article cites no third-party sources, just links to its own (defunct) website, and there is no Wikipedia policy that states a radio station is notable simply because it has broadcast. Flip Format (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable with no third-party coverage, and sources — archived press release and station's own website — are a joke. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable topic (source are primary or routine for WP:ORG) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An article which only sites primary sources makes the article's retention that much harder to justify, especially as there are also notability concerns. I am not in favour of articles being deleted but, following the most recent additional comments by User:Flip Format and User:Beemer69 I am now happy to alter my vote to draftify in the hope that independent sources can be found, and if not, then the article can be automatically deleted when the draft-space period expires. Rillington (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I have added 4 new sources just from the first page of google books and there are lot more available in the following pages that can be used to expand this article significantly. Similarly, it is mentioned on various journals per the search results on google scholar. MCR has been cited in a lot of books as well. Jeraxmoira (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ITEXISTS. The added Google Books sources are passing mentions. Not really enough for notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following Jeraxmoira's excellent efforts regarding adding independent sources, I am in a dilemma as to whether to revert back to Weak keep. One positive thing that can come out of AfD discussions is that it insentivises people to improve articles to try to get them retained and this is a perfect example of this. Now feel that the article now has sufficient independent references to mean that this article would no longer need to be moved to draftspace as I think it's now unlikely that further improvements can be made. Ultimately I think it comes down to whether former stations that had broadcast for temporary periods are seen as notable enough to have an article. Rillington (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Radio Ramadan. Owen× ☎ 20:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I came across Radio Ramadan, but I guess both are different as this is mentioned as "Ramadan Radio" and has a different frequency Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If it is the same, then Radio Ramadan should be merged with Muslim Community Radio! Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, with Muslim Community Radio retained and Radio Ramadan merged into it. However, from what the article indicates, this isn't about a radio station. Instead it is about "a type of...radio station which operates...during the Ramadan period." Rillington (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is a ton of coverage about Muslim Community Radio (2MFM) in Sydney, Australia, which continues to operate (at least 52 hits on ProQuest including duplicates and not all in-depth, but there are enough articles where Muslim Community Radio is the main focus). If this article is kept, and an article for 2MFM is created, this article would need to be renamed (possibly "Muslim Community Radio (UK)") and "Muslim Community Radio" would either become a disambiguation page, or 2MFM in Australia could become primary. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a Muslim Community Radio on South Africa as well. [1] Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2023 (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.