Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation

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

My only concern about this article is it only lists down the radio stations owned by the network. I think this article should be deleted for now for I think there are no chances for the article to be improved. —theenjay36 20:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- I agreed this is a poor article, and needs much improvement, but it is not sobad that we need to start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand theenjay36's reasoning here. There's not much here yet, but this could clearly be vastly expanded. Just look at the history here. The company has been subject of legislation, which promises the existence of secondary sources. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Samuel J. Howard, there looks to be plenty of scope to widen this article and make it much better. theenjay36 may not have seen the whole thing for what it could become. Expand, don't excise :) CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 01:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expanded. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit the article could do with a huge expansion but imho improving the article's better than deleting, Also there are alot of sources on Google (It's 5am and I really can't be bothered in copying & pasting 10 different urls). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Samuel J. Howard. -- Calidum 05:53, 31 December 2014 (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.