Deletion of Cwm Twrch transmitting station

Comment: I notice that whilst some people want useful pages about real-world things deleted, it seems to be perfectly OK that Wikipedia hosts a mighty tree of articles on The Simpsons TV programme. The main page links to an episode list, which is a list of links to individual wikipedia pages on each and every one of the several hundred "Simpsons" episodes, each with a plot summary, cast list etc. Then there are 13 separate pages listing each of the Simpsons' series, each one again containing a potted plot summary and a link to the individual page per episode. Many of the characters on the Simpsons have a page of their own, and there are portals and all sorts of other stuff documenting the Simpsons. Documenting what?? The Simpsons is a cartoon series! None of the characters even exists! Yet all of this Simpsons related cruft is well-enough regarded that today, the single episode page The_Last_Temptation_of_Krust achieved Featured Article status! I find it had to believe that more than one or two individual episode pages of The Simpsons (or the individual character pages) have ever achieved the degree of "notability" being demanded of this article on the Cwm Twrch TV transmitter. Yet I would not lower myself to barge into any of The Simpsons article tree and nominate some random part of it for deletion. I say that until Wikipedia generates a policy of how deeply it is prepared to host a tree of articles on a minority US TV series, then this current attempt to vandalise documentation of the UK terrestrial TV network be abandoned under 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: We do; it is the |notability guidelines that also govern inclusion of articles such as television episode, as well as transmission towers.  If that can be satsified for the Cwm Twrch transmitting station, then the article will be kept
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: When considering our definition of notability, it's important to note the difference between true independent coverage, and routine reports/news etc about the subject. As  states "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". In this case, none of the cited refs actually show notability (as we define it) because they are all standard reports of the type that apply to ''all'' relay stations - when it was opened, its location, power, targets, when it converted to Freeview etc. No doubt the same information is available for every relay in the country and to accept such information as enough to show notability is tantamount to saying that all TV relays are |inherently notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE||WP:IHN)

Comment: The proposer didn't do any research before selecting this article for a kicking. Of course it satisfies , it is a TV transmitter providing service to about 2000 homes. Three or four references are provided to back up the technical facts listed, all of them give "significant indepth attention" to it. (Ukfree, Mb21 etc). The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information on the world about us: current and historical. If you park your caravan in a remote campsite when on holiday, and wonder where to point your TV aerial for a signal, chances are you might turn to wikipedia for info. If TV relays are considered not notable, that's reduced wikipedia's usefulness in reflecting the world around us. And where do you stop? The main transmitters: Carmel transmitting station|Carmel for instance, are just "re-transmitting programming without any locally originated programming" (see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)