Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pylons of Pearl River Crossing


 * 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Pylons of Pearl River Crossing

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article gives a bunch of technical specifications of three power pylons in China, but it doesn't really give an explination why these pylons are important. Descendall 07:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Mastipedia -- no, just Delete per not an indiscriminate collection of tall standy things. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable power pylons, what's next, phone booths? Nuttah68 10:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If people can simply declare that every 1/2 mile long U.S. or state or county road road is "inherently notable" because they "LIKE" them, then why wouldn't power pylons which are probably more expensive, approved by governmental authorities, assigned numbers, and equally useful to society be just as "inherently notable?" And these seem better sourced than some of the articles about roads or persons of minor nobility. I'm not arguing to keep this, but the question does make me stop and think. Edison 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I support all road articles, but non-specialists tend to be more aware of the roads in their area, & they could be said in t hat sense to be more notable.DGG 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By that token, if several people know all aboutsome area of knowledge, such as "the ash trays used at Howard Johnson restaurants" or "British telephone booths" or "covered wooden bridges" wouldn't they be "more aware of"  same and thus the subjects would become "inherently notable?" Why should anything be "inherently notable" just because a few Wikipedia editors are fans of it, absent some common notability criterion in terms of multiple reliable secondary sources? Edison 05:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm totally writing an article about ash trays at Howard Johnson restaurants, now. :)  —Carolfrog 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)  Oh, also—here. —Carolfrog 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, couldn't find any significant sources about this topic. It seems somewhat notable due to the height of the pylons but this can be integrated in an article similar to Yangtze River power line crossings. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2023 (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.