Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KSAX 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. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

KSAX Tower

 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)

As cleanup following successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts et sec, I'm nominating a whole bunch of US radio and TV towers which are below 380 meters tall. Towers below 400m are relatively common in the USA, and none of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. These are all stubs, none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the last AfD regarding these. Is it possible to speedy delete all of these, since the last batch were deleted? --Sable232 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I belive most of the articles up for deletion can be go up for Speedy Deletion because of lack of context.--M8v2 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Ohconfucious, are you going to move on to masts in other countries? MER-C 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Will have to see. The US ones are in a sense easier - the 80:20 rule of deleteworthy candidates is easier to establish. Ohconfucius 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate mass nominations, but delete. -Amarkov blahedits 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all of this towercruft. Yikes!  Edeans 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus shows that the correct name is polecruft. You're an evil name POV pusher!!! :) -Amarkov blahedits 04:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Whoa! Polecruft!! Sr13 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete each and every one and congrats to nom for tracking all these down! - WJBscribe (WJB talk) 06:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Nothing notable about these towers. Do we have to have discussion on each and every one? --John Lake 06:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the answer.--John Lake 06:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I think these are all in the List of masts anyways. Why do they need articles? Unless they fall down and crush a Democratic senator, they aren't notable. --Brianyoumans 08:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all (or merge) 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)
 * It makes us an encyclopedia, instead of a collection of random things about poles. Like WP:NOT says we are supposed to be. -Amarkov blahedits 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most encyclopedias don't have articles on Pokemon characters, indy bands, or colleges: Wikipedia doesn, so wikipedia is different. I see nothing random here, so I'm not sure why that's applicable. WP:NOT says Wikipedia isn't paper. So I'm afraid I don't understand your argument.--Sandy Scott 15:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT says we're not a directory. Articles which say nothing but what the thing is and where it is situated aren't encyclopedia articles, they're directory listings. -Amarkov blahedits 15:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all although I do dislike these batch nominations.-- danntm T C 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete - I don't have a problem with mass deletions, but they need to be presented properly for AfD and Deletion review purposes. As the AfD presently is proposed, I don't see your mass deletion surviving deletion review.  You may want to cancel this AfD and repropose it by placing similar topics in groups.  For example, (I figured out that my problem is not with the present proposal, but the mass deletion process. -- Jreferee 19:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC))  I would support a proposal for deletion presented as follows: GROUP I:Citadel Broadcasting Tower Brentwood, Omnicom Tower Sharon, Reiten TV tower, SpectraSite Tower Louisburg, Trinity Broadcasting Tower Oklahoma, WCPE Radio Tower, WDAY TV Tower, WVEC TV Tower - Each article contains no more three sentences sentence, all the articles were created on same day by the same editor, Special:Contributions&target=85.74.33.35, using the same (wrong) approach to post each article, and the relevant information in each individual article is contained in List_of_masts, thus deleting the articles will not remove notable information from Wikipedia.  GROUP II: etc.-- Jreferee 19:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it, whether they were created by the same person is largely irrelevant. We don't target individual editors, but the articles themselves except in the cases of trolls/vandals. The fact is that these listed are all pretty much useless stubs which capture info already in the FCC registration which, incidentally have tried my best to preserve. Ohconfucius 06:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that whether they were created by the same person is largely irrelevant to getting your way and having the articles deleted. However, you are asking us to delete articles in the collective, not individually.  There should to be a consideration in the deletion proposal of each editor's collective effort over multiple articles.  Regarding the example I gave, the fact that an anonymous editor created all the stub articles on same day using the same (wrong) approach to post the information which largely already exists on Wikipedia elsewhere helps those voting to give consideration to that editor's collective effort and come to a conclusion that these article were a mistake by a novice editor.  It will help the novice editor understand why their articles were efforts were.  I do appreciate your efforts to clean up Wikipedia.  However, you are not just asking us to delete data, you are asking us to delete the hard work of many editors.  You might not see yourself as target individual editors, but the editors behind many of the above articles are new and might see it differently.  For example, you listed not just one but many articles created by user 85.74.33.35.  Also, I did not see a notice on user 85.74.33.35 talk page that many of his/her article are up for deletion.  What is that new user supposed to think?  Most of the editors of the articles you listed are new and probably have no idea that deletion is even possible.  Fairness to these new editors during a collective deletion process should include at least a notice on their talk page and some showing consideration that their collective efforts to contribute to Wikipedia have been considered in collectively proposing their articles for deletion.  I think we need to develop guidelines for collective deletions of articles.-- Jreferee 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just want to say that I hate mass-nominations like this, even if I don't necessarily think any of the articles will be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as exemplars of articles about nonnotable things created by cut and paste from a database somewhere. There is no merit in trying to replicate everything that has an entry in some database as a Wikipedia article. These will then be stale copies of the original database with no automatic update function in place. A main article talking about the function history and types of masts, with a link to master databases elsewhere, would be far preferable. The oldest, tallest, etc could justify articles, especially if they have books, newspaper articles, architectural or engineering awards. There are no attestations of the importance of these things except that they exist. So do the transmitters, but no articles for them?Edison 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Delete. My first thought when I saw this entry was "Oh, my, somebody wrote an article about the Air Traffic Control Tower at SAX airport -- we must delete this airport cruft".  Then I read it and found out it was transmission tower cruft, not airport cruft.  Not all tower articles are cruft; CN Tower for example, is a good article.  These are cruft.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because of reasons previously stated above: non-notability, etc.  (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt every single non-notable tower/mast article on Wikipedia. I think it is the only way that this problem of non-notable masts will be resolved. I would also request a review of these mast articles with the WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Television and WikiProject Radio. Wikipedia is not the MB21 transmission gallery of TV/Radio towers/masts. Any UK based mast information that isn't there should be given to the aforementioned website, and removed from Wikipedia. They won't grow beyond a stub and fail WP:NN miserably as well as WP:NOT and WP:NOT. --tgheretford (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Several people have mentioned the same sentiment, but that's the alternative? 30 distinct AfDs?  I sampled about 6 of them; they all appear to have the same fundamental flaw, which is that they're just data extracted from some tower database, with nothing notable to say about any individual tower.  So what would be gained by discussing each one individually?  If anybody (perhaps the creator?) thinks there are some subset of these which should not be painted with the same brush, they should speak up now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say smaller groups would be preferable. A half-dozen might be easier to swallow.  It's not like there's a pressing hurry to delete any of these pages.  At the worst, I'd say it's boring content, which while many things isn't a real problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mass deletion appear to be a valuable Wikipedia tool, but it appears to lack guidelines. For those interested, I started a discussion thread here. -- Jreferee 19:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, but add the geographical co-ordinates info to the list of masts article. The rest of the basic info is already included on that list. Qandnotq 02:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge KSAX Tower into lists of masts. No consensus on the other ones. Just H 20:41, 20 December 2006 (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.