Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTMO 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 all. Renata 06:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

KTMO Tower

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

As further cleanup following of successful batch deletion of unremarkable masts, I'm nominating this batch of US radio and TV towers that are no more than that 317 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. All are stubs, and none have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. Ohconfucius 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems every day radio tower articles are being nominated for deletion... Keep per notability. Sharkface217 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Testimony of editors is not a reliable source. Please provide some evidence of this notability, so that it can be examined and confirmed or repudiated. - 152.91.9.144 05:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As none of them are realistically notable, and all of the information is already in the List of massts, why spearate articles for each of them?? SkierRMH, 06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Until NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES can be provided for each of these, they are by default non-notable. --Jayron 32 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. MER-C 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all, unless independent sources are cited. Non-notable actually. Ter e nce Ong 14:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Unless multiple independent verifiable nontrivial sources are cited to show their notability as the oldest, tallest, most important in some way, and absent any guideline for masts, they should not have articles. Edison 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not paper encyclopedia, no real reason for these to be deleted at all, well, none above anyway. -- Librarianofages 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Inclusion in List of masts is the best way to present this information.  If a particular tower has some separate notability, because a giant ape climbs it or whatever, then a separate article would be fine.  I agree that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but deletion doesn't remove any significant information. JamesMLane t c 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of masts and redirect. B.Wind 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All per above. Vegaswikian 03:44, 9 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.