Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesterfield 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Chesterfield transmitting station

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I cannot see any reason why this television and radio relay station serving a town is any more or less notable than the thousands of others serving different towns, cities and villages in the UK. Almost the entire article consists of WP:OR and it is not a particularly unique or significant landmark. WP:NOTDIR of routine television and radio transmitting stations that are not the site of any particular innovation, do not serve a significant or large population nor form a notable landmark. Flip Format (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, United Kingdom,  and England. Flip Format (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with nom, this does not meet WP:GNG whatsoever. Stopasianhate (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes this is a relay transmitter but it covers a substantial area which will extend beyond the actual town, and will broadcast to well in excess of 100,000 people. This is therefore a notable transmitter and therefore a notable article. Rillington (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you find any sources to back this up? Independent coverage that is specifically about this transmitting station (as opposed to lists of TV relays in general)? Even MB21 is drawing a blank and they are normally a good source of things like BBC R&D papers about transmission sites. This appears to just be another very routine TV relay, and the article as it stands doesn't make a case for notability.


 * I'd say Emley Moor is notable as a significant listed structure serving a few million people; Bilsdale transmitting station is notable again as a very major site and because of the fire; Ferryside is a small relay, but it is notable because it was the first relay in the UK to switch to digital TV and there are news and other sources to back up its notability.


 * In contrast to those examples, I can't see any reason why this site is special. 100,000 isn't a huge population coverage and it doesn't appear to have been the site of any particularly remarkable events. If you or someone else can make the case beyond a simple unsourced statement of "it's notable" then I'd be happy to see the article improved and kept, but what's there now isn't justifying an article. Flip Format (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: To expand this slightly. In order to get some consistency as to what TV transmitters are seen notable, I'd suggest that any transmitter which carries all six DTT multiplexes is notable but the fill-in transmitters which only carry the BBC and ITV multiplexes are not notable. Therefore, using this criteria, this (Chesterfield) transmitter would be seen as notable because it carries all six multiplexes, but the other two currently in service transmitter articles being considered for deletion - Bala and Burry Port - are not notable because they only carry the BBC and ITV multiplexes and therefore would be deleted. Rillington (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Rillington, you've just invented a new guideline mid-way through an AfD, to suit your desire for this article to be kept. I'm using existing guidelines, namely WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage in a reliable and independent source that is specifically about this transmission site and tells us why it's so important over and above all the thousands of other TV/radio relay sites in the world, regardless of how many services they transmit. We can't have an article on every radio relay, cell tower and minor mast in the world, so WP:GNG as an existing policy is where the line needs to be drawn. The entire article as it stands is WP:OR, and when I've tried to improve it using known sources for things like research papers on transmitter sites, I've drawn a blank. All I can find are basic details of its location and the services it transmits, and WP:NOTDIR of transmitters and frequencies. Can you find anything to prove the notability of this transmitter in a reliable and independent source? Flip Format (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was trying to find a compromise for this particular set of articles, and this is probably now more relevant given that you have nominated for deletion many more similar articles. Rillington (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, from this comment, I take it that you can't find any policy-based reason (e.g. some significant coverage in a reliable and independent source) for this article to be kept, so you're attempting to make up a new policy on the hoof. Otherwise, your comment would have read along the lines of "I've found some good quality sources for this article and I've added them". I'm glad we're now clear on that. I'd be happy for the article to be improved and kept, but neither of us seems able to find any decent coverage of Chesterfield transmitting station specifically (as opposed to lists of tx sites in general). Other nominations for similar transmitter articles have been made for similar policy-based reasons and have no bearing on this discussion, which is specifically about Chesterfield transmitting station. Flip Format (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right when it comes to references as there are no internet-based reference provided in this article and this in itself makes keeping any article harder to justify. However for me, it comes down to notability and what I was trying to do was to define, for the basis of UK TV transmitters, what might be seen as a notable transmitter. I did notice that when this article is deleted, there will be some coverage of this relay as is listed in the Emley Moor article. Rillington (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete; Yes, it's good that some people want to talk about the infrastructure of radio transmission, and it's good that they set up enthusiasts' websites to exchange information about what they've found. But this is not the right place. We should have articles on those transmitters that, because of their history, or technical situation, have attracted wider attention. Failing some event(s) that hit the news, some important role in history, we can't have an article. An analogy is rail accidents, where railwaysarchive.co.uk correctly aims to list every accident that's ever happened in the UK, while our own List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom selects those that are in some way significant, and have more than trivial news/book coverage. This transmitter is not Droitwich by a long shot. Elemimele (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Elemimele above. Wikipedia should not over-represent anorak interests beyond their significance in the wider world in the way it has often done in the past.  RobinCarmody (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I accept that Wikipedia isn't the place for an article about every relay transmitter in the UK - there are more than 1,000 of them. This is one reason for my suggestion regarding what transmitters could be seen as notable and which are not. Rillington (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.