Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill

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 or merge and redirect, see below. Sandstein 11:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's rationale: The volume of this debate requires me to filter out the sort of unhelpful opinions enumerated at

oldafdfull

}} to the talk pages).
Whatever isn't a redirect a week from now will be deleted. Sandstein 11:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill

)

I'm nominating a whole bunch of radio and TV towers that are less that fewer that 400 meters tall. None of the towers that I am nominating are noteable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Note that these articles constitute only a tiny percentage of the articles linked to on

List of masts. I tried to pick some of the least noteable entries. Also please note that Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts

states "Mast articles should be merged and redirected with this list, unless they contain substantial additional information that does not fit in the list (for instance, Warsaw radio mast)." None of these articles have any substantial additional information.

--Descendall 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep All - per
WP:LOCAL--Row97 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all into general or regional articles. These look like prime candidates for a table, since there's little to say individually about each. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect). If the policy says "Mast articles should be merged and redirected with this list, unless they contain substantial additional information that does not fit in the list (for instance, Warsaw radio mast)." Then I don't see what we're doing here. This is for requested moves. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. MER-C 12:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if we can't get rid of them completely, Merge. Let's be clear about this once and for all: things aren't notable simply because they exist, or are over a certain height. WMMartin 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all, as non-notable local structures. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Merge if necessary, but don't delete useful information just because you are not interested in it. Trollderella 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I'm basically not interested in these radio towers, but I did nominate the articles for deletion in good faith. I just don't see any useful information in any of these articles. The most that anyone can say about any of these things is that they exist and they are located at a certain geographic coordinate. --Descendall 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WMMartin. I see no merit in someone taking a large online database and making an article out of every entry in it. Now we have an article which soon becomes outdated every time a toweris replaced, and which adds nothing beyond what is in the source database. Edison 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these are already listed at
List of masts. I'd be fine with a merge/redirect too if someone wants to undertake this.--Isotope23 19:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all These are fine on a table per User:Isotope23. This maintains the information for those masses needing mast data. If latitude and longitude is needed, columns should be added to the table.Obina 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mgm. — RJH (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as too large of a nomination. Group by state and try again.
Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect all as I don't believe any of the articles contain any important info that isn't already in
List of masts. -- Kicking222 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all with
List of masts. If latitude/longitude are needed, add them to the table. B.Wind 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all nn broadcast towers.
WP is not an indiscriminate collection of broadcast towers. Eusebeus 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all stubs. If anyone is interested in the geographical coordinates, these could be kept in the
List of masts article. Otherwise, all info is already present, and no useful additional information is imparted. Ohconfucius 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as suggested by Isotope23 above. The information is available in a much more readily accessable form elsewhere on the Wikipedia.Sockatume 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, no real reason given for deletion, not convinced the towers are not "notable," and the grouping makes it difficult to judge on their own merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I disagree with your assertion that they are badly grouped. 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].". They are amongst the lowest structures listed in the page
List of masts. Out of the list of a thousand, there are nearly 700 masts of under 400m in height. In most of the articles, there is not even the slightest assertion of notability, so this is pure cruft. IMO, they could have been speedied, but at least we're having a debate about it here. Ohconfucius 02:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I agree with Baldy. CraigMonroe 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for the towers that belong to TV stations, merge into the parent station if an article exists on the station. For the University of North Carolina tower, merge into the article on the university. For the
American Towers articles, create an article about the parent company and merge. For others, merge into the list of towers. 69.140.173.15 15:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep They're all landmarks and serve important functions, hence they're notable. --Oakshade 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal watertowers serve as local landmarks and argueably serve in the most important function in the world -- the delivery of water to human beings. Would you advocate including them in Wikipedia? --Descendall 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...you might be onto something. I'll explore this. --Oakshade 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to start with routine streets first. Those are other things that 1) act as landmarks 2) serve and important function and 3) have an enmormous and well-established consensus against them. Out of the 28 people who have worked on this issue, 22 said that these things have to go, and a similar unanimous consenus was reached on one of these articles just a few days ago, but what the heck? --Descendall 08:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Highfructosecornsyrup 03:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Isotope23. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per
List of masts. Vegaswikian 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or Merge per above points. Sharkface217 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: add pictures to all and expand them. I hope, there are some people living in the areas of them, who know more. Structures taller than Eiffel Tower are not worth of being deleted from Wikipedia! ( Lorannus, 2 December 2006)

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.