Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultrasonic Broadcasting System

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) ansh 666 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasonic Broadcasting System[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable radio network; search results do not provide reliable sources. Additionally, the article just exists for someone to vandalize it. Sixth o f March 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Then revert the vandalism or ask for semi-protection. National radio network with known radio stations; AfD is not a solution to nuke an article just because you hate RVV'ing it. Nate • (chatter) 07:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it notable just because it owns multiple stations? Can't find any reliable sources whatsoever. Sixth o f March 15:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Reliable source added.--Jondel (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the source added it looks like this easily meets being notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jondel and RickinBaltimore, I'm not convinced with the reference added. It's not enough. Sixth o f March 06:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Huh? Why? How 'enough' does it have to be?! --Jondel (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2016 (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.