Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FM- and TV-mast Trzeciewiec
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 as not notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FM- and TV-mast Trzeciewiec
- FM- and TV-mast Trzeciewiec (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- FM- and TV-mast Limza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- FM- and TV-mast Zolwieniec (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- FM- and TV-mast Jemiolow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- FM- and TV-mast Chwaszczyno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- FM- and TV-mast Miłki koło Giżycka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- FM- and TV-mast Piaski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Prod contested by User:Zonk43. Cleanup of stubs of non-notable masts per AfD precedent. Excessive number of stub articles in this category, see also User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. These are stubs of equally unremarkable masts for deletion, this time in Poland. Ohconfucius 09:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. Deizio talk 16:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all - I don't see why we need articles on every non-notable masts. What's next, articles on every electricity pole? Jayden54 22:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, there were a few of those as well, but they've been prodded. MER-C 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per above. With regard to the no doubt large number of mast enthusiasts who will suggest keep let me remind you of WP:NBD. The "consensus" that will be brought up is from January 2006. The recent deletion of a large number of US masts clearly demonstrates our current attitude towards these articles. MartinDK 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not so sure. There has been one strong dissenting voice on the recent US mast nominations, and the even more recent ones in the UK (26th) are contested leaning towards keep. My own view has changed. I now believe if the article is nothing but a stub giving height and location then it should go; at worst it takes a few minutes to recreate. But if someone has added a photo and has something interesting to say about notability then I lean towards keep. They are likely to be local landmarks. Akihabara 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that we should be careful about possible trainwrecks here. A picture does not grant notability, the fact that a particular mast has played some important role may. MartinDK 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're correct, but a photo does indicate that someone's interested in the mast in question, making it that much more likely to be expanded beyond raw information. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Anyone who lives near to or goes to the location can take a photo, and still does not guarantee an encyclopaedic article. Please bear in mind that the Wikipedia test per WP:NN is that the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Ohconfucius 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- You're correct, but a photo does indicate that someone's interested in the mast in question, making it that much more likely to be expanded beyond raw information. JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that we should be careful about possible trainwrecks here. A picture does not grant notability, the fact that a particular mast has played some important role may. MartinDK 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not so sure. There has been one strong dissenting voice on the recent US mast nominations, and the even more recent ones in the UK (26th) are contested leaning towards keep. My own view has changed. I now believe if the article is nothing but a stub giving height and location then it should go; at worst it takes a few minutes to recreate. But if someone has added a photo and has something interesting to say about notability then I lean towards keep. They are likely to be local landmarks. Akihabara 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- These seem to be pretty tall masts, so I think information about them should be kept. Merge into either an article about tall structures in Poland (per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts) or the locality (per WP:LOCAL). JYolkowski // talk 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the idea that valuable information should be merged if possible. That said Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts is a sub-page of an official policy, not official policy itself so WP:NBD apply. I think you are more right when bringing up WP:LOCAL which also supports the merge argument for the notable masts and in any case would have reduced this to a content dispute within another article rather than an AfD. MartinDK 07:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete These fungible utilitarian structures lack multiple sources to show they are notable. Being in a database of masts, or someone taking pictures of it, does not make it notable. I could take pictures of the mailbox at the corner and enter data from a database of mailboxes, but it would still be a non-notable mailbox. Find several newspaper or magazine articles where the mast is the primary subject and I will change my mind. Edison 00:27, 29 December 2006 (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.
