Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wand TV 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. Essjay (Talk) 10:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wand TV Tower

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts et sec, I'm nominating these 54 US radio and TV masts which are between 400 and 450 meters tall. There are hundreds of masts below 500m in the USA, and none of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. These are all dead boring stubs, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can you confirm the masts will remain on the list of masts? If so I can agree we should delete this mastcruft. People can recreate from the list if they have something interesting to add about them. Akihabara 10:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• I will have every intention of keeping the List of masts. Please refer to Masts below 350 meters tall. In place of the links to the articles to be deleted, I have previously copied the external weblink to the relevant article on the FCC site, so that a simple click will get you there. I don't undertake to be able to do them all before they are deleted. Hopefully, sombody will help me perform same this time around, as this work is very time consuming. ;-) Ohconfucius 12:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've moved the information elsewhere, why not just redirect all of these to the List, there is no need to delete.--Sandy Scott 14:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all (or merge/redirect) Whilst these are fairly useless, and I think the creator probably needs to get out more, they are also harmless. They are NPOV and verifiable. Wikipedia hasn't got a space shortage. If the creator needs to find better things to do with his time, so does the nominator. No-one in this debate has presented any argument as to why Wikipedia would be better off without this information. Yes, this is 'cruft', and so what? Do people just enjoy removing minor information from wikipedia just for the fun of it? Does it make us feel superior?--Sandy Scott 12:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sandy Scott, we do not keep articles because they do not do any harm, but instead because they are found useful to this encyclopedia. If everything that didn't do any harm was kept, Wikipedia would be filled with balant spam which could kill the servers. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I though Wikipedia kept articles unless there was a compelling reason to delete them. What is the reason to delete this information? It isn't 'blatant spam' it isn't 'POV' and it is verifiable. I still see no reason. Is there a need to keep the number of articles down in order to spare the servers? I wasn't aware of that, but perhaps you are right. Can you point me to the information?--Sandy Scott 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as non-notable masts. Wikipedia, of course, should not have an article over each single mast, building, or large structure out there. If these had some amount of press-release or wide acknowledgment, I'd say keep. Otherwise, none of these are notable. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all. Somebody, who doubtless knows more about masts than I am ever going to (I hope), thought them worth making articles of, and they are still apparently worth being noted on lists, so there is clearly some sort of interest. As the articles are already in place, making redirects of them seems a far more sensible and productive course than totally eradicating them, and one which doesn't take up much server space either. HeartofaDog 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable utilitarian structures, as boring and fungible as telephone poles or mailboxes. Delete these stale copies cut and pasted from a directory. Edison 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete them all: burn with fire, and lots of fire at that. They are towers. They exist. And? Where on God's earth is the notability for this lot? Do tell, please. Moreschi 21:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to list of masts or similar. Lack of content in a particular article is not a problem requiring deletion, rather in this case it's a problem requiring merging. Similarly lack of importance of individual elements of a series of things is not a problem requiring deletion, it's a problem requiring merging so that appropriate context can be provided. --bainer (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am pretty sure that many of these masts were just erected by TV or radio stations without much thought for names, and the names used here may or may not be correct. Unless someone can establish the notability of any of the above masts, with magazine or other published articles which refer to them by name, I do not think we should even bother with a redirect. Ohconfucius 13:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep on grounds that no-one can be bothered checking they're all nn so delete votes are ill-informed? (for instance, closer, are you going to check this point?) establishing precedent for blanket deletions like this might be a very bad idea (unless there is precedent already, in which can this is irrelevent). please note i am not questioning noms assertion, i am concerned about the principle being established.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone is of course free to test any (or all) of the articles to see if they're not useless stubs. ;-) Ohconfucius 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect - I'd be more comfortable with someone who knows more about this subject merging or redirecting these articles, rather than just deleting them all.--David Straub 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is part of an overdue cleanup. Errors in the listing are usually pointed out by this point in time. If a mistake is made the article in question can be undeleted. Vegaswikian 07:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• No Consensus at least for now. I don't like mass deletions, they put a bias towards articles that wouldn't be there otherwise. afd these individually please. Just H 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment. I hope you're not serious ;-). Please note that all the articles are c&p "[Towername] Tower is a [n] meters high guyed TV tower at [City, State, Country] at LONG°" N and LAT°" W. [Towername] Tower was built in [Year].". There are nearly 848 masts of under 500m in height listed in List of masts (86% of total). In most of the articles proposed, there is not even the slightest assertion of notability, so this is pure cruft. I have furthermore taken care not to nominate any which have even slightest assertion of notability. IMO, the AfD process is sufficiently transparent that all the articles are easily checked if participants are prepared to spend the time, which admittedly not all are. Proposing separate AfDs for this "commodity" would be even a greater waste of kb and everybody's time. Ohconfucius 02:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all per Sandy Scott.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all to appropriate list(s). No need to salt. Leave the way open to separate article when a mast gains notability by being climbed by King Kong or whatever.JamesMLane t c 05:33, 21 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.