Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Rosinton

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. -

Mailer Diablo 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Rosinton

Following precedents of mast stub deletions, I'm nominatiing this batch of US masts below 540m in height. None of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation, some have not even been categorised. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form in

WP:NOT#DIR. (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for rationale and fuller list of precedents ) Ohconfucius 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment and delete since we've done, oh a dozen or so or these batches recently, all with total consensus and usually little debate, would it be possible just to prod these? or speedy them or something? Or issue a standing deletion order for admins? I mean, I respect the amount of effort that some editors have put into weeding out this non-notable towercruft, but it's getting kinda silly to have to go through and AfD every batch. Wintermut3 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More fungible vertical steel structures lacking evidence of notability. Edison 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Can I get a Wikipedia article on the water main on my street? --Shirahadasha 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OUT!!! --Brianyoumans 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of the few true examples of "cruft" that still exists on WP (and I hate the term cruft, by the way). Basically just a holdover from WP's early "anything goes" days which have now worn out their welcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 'cruft' is usually an unessisary slur, but in this case, it seems to be as close as you come to the dictonary definition... Wintermut3 19:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too indiscriminate.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by precedent. Realkyhick 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.