Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleworth 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saddleworth Transmitting Station

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

Article about a local transmitting station is not notable, per WP:N. (Article was previously tagged with a PROD but the template was removed, so I'm listing it here.) elektrik SHOOS 19:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - It's my understanding that when a radio transmitter or station is simply rebroadcasting the signal of another station, or simply acting as a relay station its not individually notable. If that is the case this article should be redirected to it's parent station or source, if not then I will have to rethink my opinion. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the "main" article but wonder why this article is here? Is this a transmitting station or a type of relay station. "If" there is a main station article that can not reach an area without this "relay" station this would be worthy of mention in that article. If this is a fact then the preferred approach, as I understand it, would be to tag the article with a merge to request. I am not sure how it works now but it does seem the information from this unassessed stub could be pertinent in that article where it probably should have been from the start. Otr500 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect if a more appropriate home can be found) Stalwart111 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2010 (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.