Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facility 4101, Tower 93


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Facility 4101, Tower 93

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article, translation of de:Anlage 4101, Mast 93. Looking for either title gives no results in reliable sources, so this tower seems to lack notability. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a good question, why there are not many pages containing this object. Perhaps the people in the area of Brühl were not aware of its unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F20:D795:7C4D:FF49:7DA0:155D (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agreed, as per nomination, no reference, and since the observation tower has gone, the tower really lacks notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per lack of sourcing. "Aussichtsturm Bleibtreusee" is a better search term, but still doesn't give us much. This is the best I found, but I haven't found any discussion of the closure. Would expect local newspaper coverage to exist, though. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No deletion: this structure was according to all available information the only (active) electricity pylon, which was equipped with an observation deck. A search using https://www.google.de/search?q=observation+deck+electricity+pylon&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjm4eC0ys3rAhVLgaQKHS0rBZwQ2-cCegQIABAA&bih=750&biw=1519 gave only this tower as result. The tower is therefore remarkable, as it shows that even in a country with strict laws as Germany, it is not against the law to realize an electricity pylon with observation deck. Many people, even engineers believe, that this may be against the law for reasons of electrical safety.
 * Are there any reliable sources that make this claim of uniqueness or discuss this safety issue? —Kusma (t·c) 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Concerning unity: can you give an other example for an electricity pylon, which is or which was equipped with a public observation deck? I would look forward to get knowledge of further objects of this kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F20:D795:F4F8:1C48:F1A1:D00B (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Being unique and being notable aren't the same thing. I can paint a unique picture, that doesn't automatically make it a worthwhile encyclopedia topic. Indeed if you can find no signficant information on it, it tends to suggest that no one else in the world finds it's uniqueness worthy of note. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion structures, which have or had an observation deck are worth of note, as these objects are or were tourist attractions and known to many people. Not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F20:D739:2DDA:73C7:DB16:5688 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion (or my opinion) on what people should find of note, is not how we determine it, we look to the evidence that people did actually find it of note, that's done by looking to having reliable sources. If it's of general interest/note then writers will have researched and written about it (or made films). If it's a tourist attraction, then travel writers will have visited and written about it. Do you have any such sources? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. It exists, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG requirement. Feel free to ping me if good arguments are presented, so far all I see above is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES/WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify. The single source in the article is to something that doesn't look like a WP:RS.  Even if there were good sources, there are enough problems with the English that it's hard to understand what the text is saying.  For example, there's a photo caption that talks about "an inverted v".  Looking at the photo, I can't tell what that means.  Another caption talks about a "Concrete olate".  Is that a typo for "Concrete plate"?  Maybe.  Moving this to draft space would give the author time to find better sources and work on the English, but my gut feeling is this is just not notable.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2020 (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.