Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caradon Hill transmitting station

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caradon Hill transmitting station

Yet another unremarkable tower. No assertion of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did someone just post articles on every radio tower in existance? MartinDK 12:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, they did: Category:UK transmitter sites, and I have to say probably only two or three of them could pass WP:N. We need a cull like the war on US masts.

Mast fetish seems to exist beyond US borders... Akihabara 13:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no, they didn't. There are about 10,000 of these sites in the UK, and only about 100 of them have articles. Harumphy 23:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmitter gallery. --tgheretford (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to have had several contributors, and is less of a stub than many shown here. I don't know what the interest is of people posting these: perhaps amateur radio fans? I think we have to be careful about WP:BIAS. Akihabara 14:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for reason I posted above, only. Akihabara 14:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bodmin Moor, which needs some expansion itself, per WP:LOCAL. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts also suggests merging. JYolkowski // talk 15:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see the reason why we need an article on this mast. Someone should really start a special Wiki for these masts so that we can transwiki all the non notable ones. Jayden54 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major local landmark. Nathanian 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What makes this notable from all other masts in the world? Just because it is a local mast? What makes it more notable than say the KVLY-TV_mast, which happens to be the tallest mast in the US (and until the tower in Burj Dubai is finished) and the world.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there are at least 10,000 radio and TV masts in the UK, only about 1% of these sites are the subject of WP articles. Generally they are the most important sites. Many of them have been written about in primary and secondary source material, although little of this has found its way into the WP articles so far. (Caradon Hill was the one of the two sites that first brought commercial TV to south-west England. It came on the air on the same day as Stockland Hill.) There's nothing in WP:N that suggests these articles ought to go. In particular, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia where space is limited. The articles may be arcane and of specialised interest, but that is probably true of 90% of WP's 1,500,000 articles. Harumphy 23:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I agree that some of these should be deleted, this mast is notable in respect of its place in broadcasting history in the UK. As Harumphy states, it was the first station in SW England to broadcast commercial TV, was the first to broadcast on Band III VHF, the first to broadcast commercial radio in the area, and has now been on the air for over 45 years. It is also one of the 30 tallest structures in the country, with One Canada Square being the only building taller. Chillysnow 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chillysnow. Not all of these towers are notable, but this one has historic broadcasting signifficance. --Oakshade 16:53, 1 January 2007 (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.