Deletion of NCI Froward Point

Comment: The yachting magazine is significant national coverage. The ITV regional news programme is significant coverage. Notability exists both in the fact that it looks after a very busy local area of sea and that it has significant media coverage. The writing style is the writing style. All style issues can be fixed without deletion of the article.  I'm trying very hard to avoid  arguments here, though it seems to me that we have a huge number of articles that are less notable, less well referenced and less well written that survive deletion discussions with a large number of folk !voting 'keep' as a matter of course
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: The article is a stub, is well referenced in |reliable sources, is notable in that it is a permitted use of a battery observation point rather than simply repurposing an old coastguard station, has played a part in far more incidents than the one quoted, incidents for which I have not yet achieved finding reliable sources. It is a working lookout point that will, with the proposed UK reduction of Coastguard rescue centres, become substantially more significant as time passes. It is one of a growing number, currently 44, NCI Coastwatch lookouts in the country, and is part of a relatively young organisation (founded in 19441994). It is not the number of rescues and other incidents that of themselves make such stations notable. Rather it is the fact of their existence at all. It does seem somewhat previous to nominate a well referenced stub for deletion so swiftly. Such actions discourage the further building of an article. Perhaps a better route would be for the nominator to find references and add them to the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)