Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of towers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of towers
This article is too long, not at all focussed, lacks a clear definition of tower. Within the haphazard definition it provides the listed towers are highly biased both in type as in geographic location (it is mainly about central European television masts and chimneys).
Even worse, any effort to ask editors to clean it up has had no results whatsoever. a clean up tag has been up since december 2005; I myself made many effort on the discussion page to suggest cleaning up. However by biased unsourced additions the article is currently in much worse state than 10 months ago when the clean up tag was first added.
Thus the quality and effort of editors is such, that removing this article is in my opinion better than leaving it up with the current quality (I have done everything I can to try to start a serious effort for imporvement and do not believe that will ever work withing starting with a clean slate). Arnoutf 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong, speedy keep. Hmm, so you have done everything you can to try to start a serious effort for improvement. Why don't you actually try to help clean up the article itself? I see you only have 6 rather minor edits on the article content since January 2006. Consider helping to improve the article rather than sitting there and yelling.
- The "List of" articles are generally like this. They require your actual assistence unless it's a irrelevant topic. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Definite Wikipedia material, IMO, albeit in need of direction and clean-up. PKT 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems useful and maintainable.--Húsönd 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep possibly some of this information needs to be trimmed down, and to be consisent, they should probably use either the Metric System thoroughout, or American units. Or both, I suppose. And yes, it should start off with a description of the list, which seems to be different from occupied buildings. FrozenPurpleCube 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I just took 10 minutes to do some general formatting for the article. It's really not that hard. All we need do is to specify the "tallest towers" and delete unrelated contents & towers with insignificant height. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 21:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Although I see your arguments that it should stay, my problem is that my efforts to come up with a definition for tower before adding stuff has not been taken seriously by other editors. Consider the ongoing addition of structures like Valle de los Caídos and Little Belt Overhead powerline crossing 2 as towers to get an idea what some people think should go in this article. However, I can respect the evolving consensus for keeping. Arnoutf 22:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, there just needs to be some work done to it. It's not right just deleting it because it isn't complete. Craighennessey 00:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs a bit of definition, but shouldn't be deleted. -- Necrothesp 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and prune, needs some criteria set, like minimum height per type, so we have TV masts over 100 meters and timber towers over 50 meters or something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:48, 21 October 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.
