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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• I will have every intention of keeping the
  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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete and salt every single
  WP:NOT#IINFO. --tgheretford (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to
  talk) 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]