Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEXL FM Tower

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 all Renata 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KEXL FM Tower

WBOC Television Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pinnacle Towers Tower Huntsville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cumulus Broadcasting Tower Oelwein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Agape Church Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WWSI Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Josie Park Broadcasting Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WIIQ TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KRXL Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Chico Operating Tower Red Bluff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

High Vision TV Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

KOOL Radio Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As logical followup of successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 306 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If high schools are notable, so too can radio towers. Sharkface217 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, noo...not a good analogy. Whereas high schools have tons of presence and notoriety in their communities, radio towers are generally considered eyesores. Are articles about monopoles and electrical wires next? 'Delete Allon Fambrizzi 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

• Delete Non-notable. I've been seeing a lot of AfDs for radiotowers lately. Do we have any sort of general consensus on this plauge of towercruft? wtfunkymonkey 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As none of them are realistically notable, and all of the information is already in the List of massts, why spearate articles for each of them??SkierRMH,06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Until NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES can be provided for each of these, they are by default non-notable. --Jayron32 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. MER-C 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is actually very useful information for certain people, like pilots, radio operators, etc. Mets 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, no assertion of notability, no sources stated. Not all masts are notable. That means, if I build a mast outside my house, then it deserves an article on Wikipedia... Terence Ong 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete These are non notable towers. If a particular tower is notable, it could be kept - perhaps there is one out there that was a source of countless column inches in a large newspaper, or location of a famous event. But there is no evidence these are notable.Obina 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the parent radio station or locality, no real reason to lose this useful information even if we don't need it in its own article. JYolkowski // talk 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Inclusion in List of masts is the best way to present this information. If a particular tower has some separate notability, because a giant ape climbs it or whatever, then a separate article would be fine. JamesMLane t c 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. If somone wants to merge material before the articles are deleted, go for it. Vegaswikian 03:42, 9 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.