Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cwm Twrch transmitting station (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Carmel transmitting station. The prior discussion had no good keep arguments and a proposal to merge. Redirect seems fair. Shii (tock) 06:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cwm Twrch transmitting station

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

Delete and redirect to Carmel transmitting station. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEOG. It fails WP:GNG becuase the coverage is not significant and most of the sources are not independent. The first of the five citations, is to a BBC engineering division newsletter Eng Inf which has a one line entry services opened between 17 September and 12 December: Cwm Twrch - West Glamorgan. The second citation is to the directory listing for the Cwm Twrch transmitter at UK Free TV. The third citation is to a BBC engineering division Press Release (Local Press Annoucement 698 e). The fourth cited source is to a directory that has a one line entry indicating that Cwm Twrch is part of the Carmel group. The last citation was to an Arqiva press release. The BBC engineering and Arqiva sources are not independent. The other two are directories. The previous Afd was in May 2012 with a "no consensus" result. This is just a radio/TV transmitter which is simply rebroadcasting the signal of other stations, that is, acting as a relay station. There is no claim to independent notability. WP:NGEOG says The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Welch related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deleting. The nominator makes solid arguments for not having a separate article (I can't see a reason to disagree), but unless I'm missing something, there's nothing here that absolutely needs to be trashed. Just redirect it without deleting. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 23:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information is useful and well-sourced. I see no change in the article since the last AfD discussion, closed as no consensus. Presumably the opinions given in that discussion continue to apply. Have the editors involved in that discussion been notified that the question is being raised again? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but do not delete. As Nyttend said, no reason not to preserve the history under the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followup — we have the tiny problem that someone might hit "undo" and make it an article again, but that's the only situation where I can imagine the non-deletion being a problem, and even there we could just re-undo and protect the redirect if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2015 (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.