Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Çamlıca TRT Television Tower

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Çamlıca TRT Television Tower

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD.

Sources in article:

"Farewell time for TRT Camlica Tower, which has been in service for 48 years"

Short local news nostalgia piece about the structure closing. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

"A fire broke out in TRT's transmitter"

Short routine mill coverage of a non-notable fire at the site. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. It wouldn't even contain SIGCOV about the event, and definitely not about the structure.

"Prime Minister Yıldırım examined the construction of Küçük Çamlıca TV-Radio Tower"

This is not about the subject; this is about another tower. The subject of the article (Çamlıca TRT Television Tower) was built in 1972, this completely different structure (Küçük Çamlıca TV Radio Tower) was built in 2017 and has it's own article.

WP:BEFORE revealed mentions in routine mill coverage. No SIGCOV, article is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 13:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major landmark in a major city for nearly fifty years. Can't see any good reason for deletion beyond the usual pedantic citing of non-existent "rules". Does its deletion benefit Wikipedia? Absolutely not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A structure of that size in that period in a major city, is sufficiently important to be presumed notable . This would be difficult to fully source, because I expect the sources would be Turkish newspapers, or engineering or broadcasting publication. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Keep voters state sources must exist, but they provide no sources. Clear case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. There is no guideline that states broadcast masts must be presumed notable. No one has provided anything that shows this meets NBUILD for historic importance. WP:BEFORE shows nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: t | c | a 05:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A LOT of sources about its demolishment exist: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:36, 15 January 2021 (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.