Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CBS Broadcasting Westport 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 no clear consensus. I see significant camps wanting merge, delete, and keep -- ultimately, it seems the mergists may have the most support, but it doesn't seem those calling for deletion have carried the discussion, one way or another. Feel free to DRV or re-nom individual articles, no problem for me. Luna Santin 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

CBS Broadcasting Westport Tower et al.

 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)
 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Sorry to bore you all again, but someone has seen fit to contest my prods on the above with compelling (sic) arguments such as "I disagree that masts aren't notable", "leave masts alone", and "towers and masts of this height (349m, 401m) are categorically considered notable enough for articles". No improvements have been brought to the plain one-line stub articles in question. I beg to move for deletion as per numerous overwhelming precedents. For full rationale, please see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. Ohconfucius 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all of the listed articles. All sub-stubs that don't show notability.--Jersey Devil 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete That's the problem with prods; they don't have to even improve the article to contest them and render the notion useless. Delete them, they have no claims to notability, and I very much doubt they ever will. Dåvid ƒuchs  (talk &bull; contribs) 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect with List of masts (where not already there) - information could easily be transfered there with little loss. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per Ollie. No reason to have a two-line article.  Gan  fon  00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Big  top  01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect, no reason to lose the information and better off having links to where it can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect, as above. --Davidbober 03:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and repeat, or merge/redirect if information is verified. Seraphimblade 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heathens and villians all - You should all be hung from six-inch high yardarms. But seriously... The arguments that tall masts aren't notable (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts don't hold water.  Notability is subject specific and to some degree locally determined as well - these masts are in most cases notable locally (the tallest thing around, often visibile throughout a county, etc).  There really aren't that many of them in total.  Having adequate descriptions for each would require one overly long article.  There is no damage done by keeping the stubs; at some point, we may have someone who wants to expand them and can gather the requisite details.  Ohconfucius' assertion that there's a consensus on this is specious - the consensus is one (him) plus those few who noticed them on AFD - there has been nothing approaching a reasonable effort to construct a notability guideline for Masts, get consensus for that, and then apply it consistently and globally.  The current campaign has no logical well defined stopping criterion and is a terribly bad idea.  This should be abandoned and Ohconfucius should start working on a notability criteria document for masts, and get real consensus on that, first.  Keep all, and stop AFDing until there is an agreement about notability criteria for masts  Georgewilliamherbert 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I would tend to think that the consensus at AfD has been overwhelmingly to delete-notability is actually not subjective, including subject specific, it depends over anything else on multiple non-trivial reliable source coverage. If a subject has that, it's notable, if not, it's not. Seraphimblade 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree here, although there are a few quite vocal editors who disagree (and deprod articles like this), the vaaaast majority of editors who come to AfD agree that these things should be deleted.-- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have outlined what I believe could constitute notability, and assertion thereof, and my approach has been consistent. This approach has been consistently backed over a 7 week period at AfD. Articles which have been de-prodding with even a remote improvement in line with policy have been left alone. The above were only brought to AfD because somebody disagreed but did not shape them up. I'd be happy to participate in hammering out a guideline for these structures, but I feel WP:N is adequate for the sake of these discussions. Please note that there have been a few stubs which editors have been spurred into turning into full-sized articles - Mediumwave transmitter Mainflingen is a good example of this. Ohconfucius 09:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if people can turn up articles or other sources about any particular mast to allow for expansion into something of substance (like an article on its construction, for example), then we can turn the redirect into an article. As it is now, we don't have any more information than the FCC's directory entry for each mast. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I want to seem like I'm trying to vote twice, but any of these that don't already exist in List of masts should be included there, and then delete the rest. Radagast83 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Terence Ong 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at least Mediumwave transmitter Lopik (I haven't looked at all the rest). It was built in 1938 and was one of the few masts of this height at the time, is listed on List of famous transmission sites, has a corresponding Dutch wikipedia article, and has occasionally made the news over the decades. --Delirium 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per aboveOo7565 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge) per the rapidly-growing consensus that individual mast articles aren't encyclopedic. List of masts should be enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to the list of masts and delete. These are as fungible as mailboxes and as unencyclopedic. If one has multiple independent reliable sources, bring them on and we can see if that one is notable. Creating a spew of articles such as these from another database also enshrines data which is stale: there is no automatic mechanism to detect changes in the source database, if one is replaced or extended higher or used by a different broadcaster, so we would be wasting server space with stale data. Refer those who are interested to the source database (FCC or such).Edison 19:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment you could quite happily refer any wikipedian who is interested in any subject under the sun to "the source database" or whatever. The point isn't is it available elswhere, but should it be available here to. Jcuk 21:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not even sure that I think a list of masts is notable. JCO312 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Wiki is loosing touch with notibility thinking if something doesn't have 3 million google hits its not worth the small amount of wiki space. Forgetting that its VERY notable where its at. key word here is subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiahou (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment nobody's talking about millions of GHits, just a few which may show why a particular mast has merit, whether aesthetically, technically, geographically, sexually ;-0. LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower, for example, only gave 8 unique Ghits, Woodstock Television Tower gave four unique Ghits. In both cases, all of Ghits are wiki or mirrors. Ohconfucius 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N. Addhoc 12:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lopik, as argued by Delirium. No comment on the others. Eludium-q36 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, including Lopik. While it has more external links than other articles, they do not provide more content.  The Dutch article is equally stubby as the English version. I don't see any of these articles meeting WP:N. Lyrl  Talk C 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I tried to find more information about the CBS Broadcasting Westport Tower. The only results on Google were Wikipedia and Wikipedia-mirror pages.  I searched the FCC databases and looked around Wikipedia.  After a bit of effort, I was able to determine that the Westport Tower is a transmitter for KCCO-TV (a "satellite" of WCCO-TV in Minneapolis) in Alexandria, Minnesota.  KCCO-TV doesn't even have an article, nor should it.  It simply duplicates the WCCO-TV broadcast signal.  Sources can't be found, aside from the FCC, that give any details about the tower.  Even the WCCO-TV website didn't say anything. It is simply not notable.  The WCCO-TV article mentions "Additional TV transmitters in the north serve Alexandria (KCCO 7, 24 DT) and Walker/Bemidji (KCCW 12, 20 DT)."  Having the tower mentioned as such in the WCCO-TV article is the way to go. The other transmission towers don't appear to be notable either. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2007 (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.