Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KISS Radio Tower

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 11:12, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KISS Radio Tower

Nonnotable del —msh210 16:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — As notable as a hundred others on List of masts — RJH 17:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with your comment, RJH, but does thta make it notable (in an encylopedia-inclusion or any other sense)? —msh210 18:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's on the list of masts. Feydey 18:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination does not conform with deletion policy.--Gene_poole 23:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What part specifically? ---Isaac R 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The part that says "Nonnotable". According to current policy "non-notability" is not listed as a valid deletion criteria.--Gene_poole 04:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The deletion criteria are not all-inclusive, and notability has been a de facto criterion for well over a year now. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and procedural errors are not grounds for keeping anything. Radiant_* 09:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Besides, I don't see a procedural error. "Non-notable" is just shorthand for "not important enough to escape the 'not a general knowledge base' rule". ---Isaac R 16:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • On the contrary, "not notable" is shorthand for "not notable to me", which is nothing less than intellectual chauvinism. Lots of people find lots of "mundane" subjects perfectly "notable", and they can and should be able to write about those subjects in Wikipedia without having their work casually dismissed by ill-informed or ignorant contributors who possess a misplaced sense of their own importance.--Gene_poole 04:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not sure if the nomination conforms with policy or not, but things that tall are pretty much all notable in my book. Kappa 00:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The lists of masts doesn't belong either, because we're not a general knowledgebase. (Though the page itself is worth saving as a non-list page.) ---Isaac R 00:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Why are any of these towers noteable? Being on a list is not noteable. Is every minor league stadium noteable? Is every street noteable? Is every election district noteable? Vegaswikian 04:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In answer to your questions: yes. This is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be encyclopedic.--Gene_poole 04:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, every tower, every stadium, every street, everthing that is verifiable belongs in wikipedia. Klonimus 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In answer to your questions... 1) they're not. 2. that's not a question; 3.Yes. 4.No. 5.Yes if on a list, rather than on separate articles. Of course that's my POV, but I do hold that information is more accessible and, well, informative when merged into comprehensive lists. Radiant_* 09:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • "Everything that is verifiable"? So you advocate importing phone books, broadcast schedules, class syllabuses, restaurant menus? ---Isaac R 16:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I see no logical reason why articles about telephone directories, restaurant menus and school syllabuses should not have a place in Wikipedia. Such subjects are as much a matter of interest to lots of people as are railway rolling stock, computer games and public institutions. --Gene_poole 04:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So you think Wikipedia is a general knowledge base? If so, you should be working to get that section removed from WP:NOT.--Isaac R 20:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I suggest you re-read my comment. I did not say we should import the content of phone books etc. I said that we should have articles about them. A significant difference you'd do well to grasp.--Gene_poole 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I suggest that you re-read mine in context. I was responding to a guy who said "everything that is verifiable belongs in Wikipedia". My point was that he was not making the very distinction you just made. ---Isaac R 23:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable tower. Klonimus 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of masts, which already has all this information, except that it's in San Antonio, which a link to the station article will cover. I imagine the same can be said of most of the masts on that list. The article is currently a substub with a collection of external links, and I really don't see it growing. -R. fiend 14:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect per R. fiend). I'd still like to hear why towers are considered more notable than, say, satellite dishes, telephone poles, or sewer sections. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep why make the list of towers incomplete? --Mattwj2002 17:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of masts per R. fiend. Otherwise, del. —msh210 18:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirecting would be confusing. N-Man^talk 11:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it seems important Yuckfoo 00:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not inherently notable. Megan1967 05:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major physical infrastructure is notable.--Centauri 09:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, both because the topic is not encyclopedic, and because the article itself is poor. --Dcfleck 14:50, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
• Merge to the list of Masts and redirect--nixie 03:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.