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 KEEP (no clear consensus) Nabla 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daqing Radio and Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. This article is about a telecommunications tower. It gives it's height, location, and year of construction, but doesn't say anything about why it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It's kind of tall, but it's not the tallest tower in China or anything. The Storm Surfer 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Structures this huge are inherently notable. This building is as tall as the Trump World Tower in New York! It is also remarkable as an enormous building stuck in one of the poorest regions of China. The article needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. --Targeman 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a tall structure, but it's not clear from the text that it could really be considered a building. — The Storm Surfer 14:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So it isn't a building because its structure is a steel skeleton? I suppose that means the Eifel Tower isn't a building, either? Besides, what difference does it make what we call it? --Targeman 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources, appears inherently unexpandable. If there's an article here, I'm not seeing it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am. I believe this can be quite easily sourced, illustrated and expanded. This is a short article in the making, not a permanent stub. I've contacted WikiProject China for some input. --Targeman 14:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The tower is listed on the this website [1]. The article also exists on the Portugese wikipedia [2] and the Japanese wikipedia [3] although this is probably irrelevant. The tower doesnt seem to be hugely noteable, unless anyone can find some reliable sources proving that it is.Tbo 157 17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk -

Contribs) 15:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no inherent notability for structures and this one is lacking coverage from independent sources Corpx 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you done research in sources in the relevant region of China? Beorhtric 20:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I was just going by the lack of sources in the article. If you can provide any, I'll be glad to change my mind Corpx 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its height makes in notable. Anyone in the rather populous vicinity might wish to look it up. Beorhtric 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no inherent notability for a utilitaritain and fungible TV tower of 260 meters, with over a hundred taller structures in the list of towers. It would have to have substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to show it is notable. Edison 20:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given that this tower is deep in the sticks (almost in Siberia), sources are likely to be in Chinese only. As my Chinese is strictly limited to profanity, I'd wait a few days for a zh-speaker to dig up something. --Targeman 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sentence makes for a serviceable article, albeit a short one. Seems more notable than the masses of tower articles that were deleted a while back. —Xezbeth 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I have to come down on the side of keep for now, as many smaller towers in the list of towers seem to have articles, and sources in Chinese may yet be found. However, if nothing changes, the article may need to be deleted.--Danaman5 06:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have suggested a keep, but with out a single source the article is untenable. --Joopercoopers 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Searching for 大庆广播电视塔 returns quite a few hits; I've added the fact that it is the highest steel broadcasting tower in China. Someone with Chinese expertise should easily be able to expand this article using reliable references. Warofdreams talk 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not a zh speaker so I can't read the citation but if the claim of "the highest steel broadcasting tower in China" can be confirmed then it would give it some architectural importance. I suggest asking for expert advice from WikiProject Architecture. Dbromage 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep，tall enough.We had already kept so much Category:Towers by country,if we must delete this tower,we should delete the majorties of towers in the category.Try to nominate Afd the Bicentennial Tower--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/keep. Finding online English language sources for an article like this might not be very easy. Looking for printed works such as Chinese newspapers, books etc. would most likely get much more results. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just as a note - I don't know if this particular building is notable, but it may be useful to note that in recent years, a lot of newer buildings in China were designed to look impressive and non-traditional. A lot of these were designed by famous Western firms whose native countries have stricter building restrictions. But right now the Chinese government is out to impress to the world that the country is modernising, that's why these firms have been allowed to design very non-traditional looking buildings in China. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. This photo seems to show the tower. It seems to be quite a prominent landmark in a major city... --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It does, and it is. --Targeman 18:16, 7 August 2007 (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.