Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Detroit Lions Radio Network


 * 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 Detroit Lions Radio Network
The result was   Keep per WP:KEEP / WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) flaminglawyerc 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable group of broadcasters that a football team syndicates stuff to. This can easily be covered in the main article.

And no, I am not nominating this because the Lions did horrible this year, I just see no notability. ViperSnake151 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep This article is even more notable since several Lions game have been blacked out this season and loyal fans who can't afford to go to the game must listen on the radio.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that a page is useful is not an good argument for keeping the page. ViperSnake151 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * you had your say Viper, now let other people have theirs and don't argue with people.TomCat4680 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * strong keep Sports-teams affiliated media networks is well established, absent any specific guidelines for establishing notability of a media network I see nothing in WP:N that would support a delete. Raitchison (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Would be better off as a subsection of the Detroit Lions. Emarsee (Talk • Contribs) 19:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article and the other one appear to have been nominated following an edit war on the main article.   .  It makes no difference "who started it".  Nobody wins in a battl of reversions.  Generally, a network of radio and television affiliates for sports broadcasting would be considered notable, and it does not appear that the article about the team would accomodate the information at this time. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the broadcast network of a major sports team is generally notable, as a spinoff of the main article it does inherit some notability from the parent, and it easily clears the verifiability threshold based on a quick Google News search. The article could use some improvement (including a history section) and I'm always happy to see better sourcing but it's good enough to keep as is.  - Dravecky (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per Dravecky. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • December 27, 2008 @ 00:28
 * Keep Inherently notable. Needs references though.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per Emarsee. All I see is a paragraph and a lovely example of WP:NOT. In it's current form, it doesn't warrant a separate article. JPG-GR (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.