Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIN TV Wiliamsport 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower


Previously nominated as part of batch which resulted in a train-wreck. These three are once again nominated. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. Ohconfucius 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If every little section of state or county roadway, every Pokemon, every pro soccer player, and every person given a title of nobility in Britain are inherently notable and need provide no secondary sources, then I suppose every broadcasting mast might be similarly inherently notable since they are approved by the government to serve the public good and their existence can be verified in databases if one looks a bit. Edison 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Pokémon defense "is frequently used in error, given the amount of publicity and renown the "average Pokémon" has gotten worldwide". Pro-soccer is one of the most followed sports on earth today, and plenty of sources exist every week. In class-obsessed Britain, every person given a title of nobility is continually hounded by the British press, who often publish articles about the minutiae of their aristocratic existence. Please don't confuse compliance with WP:V with notability. Radio and TV stations may be notable, but the same cannot be said of its transmitter tower. The database information is already included in List of masts article, so a merge is pointless. I have responsible for purging wikipedia of over 300 of these hopeless stub articles with little potential for improvement, and this is but a final clean-up of those few which have not been deleted, merged, or redirected to their respective TV or radio stations. Ohconfucius 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete on the basis that these towers don't have any sources and will never have articles longer than one line. These articles always lay around for months and say "x is a tower in y and is z metres tall." There have been several dozen (probably hundred by now) AfDs of a similar fashion, usually done one region at a time. The reason major roads, pokemon, soccer pros, nobles, etc, get articles is because they actually have sources about them. --Wafulz 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that my complaint was with fans of roads, knighted Brits, soccer players, and Pokemons claiming "inherent notability" in the absence of sources satisfying WP:ATT. The baronets or knights may have only a listing is a peerage book(a mere directory listing). The roads are referenced to a roadmap or a states online listing of paving bids (not a substantial nontrivial reference) or someone's hobby blog (not a reliable reference). The pokemons are referenced to a TV show (O.R. inferences throughout) or to the instruction manual of a video game (not independent). If the knight, road, or Pokemon had multiple nontrivial independent reliable sources their articles would absolutely not be an issue. My problem is with claims of inherent notability for the subjects some editors LIKE in the absence of sources satisfying WP:N or WP:ATT, and then arbtrarily deleting articles some other fan of some other subject likes. I am not a big fan of any of the subjects named, and would like to see only articles for subjects with sources meeting WP policies for notability and attribution. No gimmes. Edison 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason as most other mast/tower articles. These are non notable and already covered to the same level of detail in List of masts. Nuttah68 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as empty. Vegaswikian 06:25, 10 March 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.