Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Tower Hoyt


 * 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. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Radio Tower Hoyt

 * — (View AfD)

also nominated are Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Devers and Eastern North Carolina Broadcasting Tower. These prods were contested without improvement by User:Unfocused with the comment "we already had this discussion years ago, and concluded that these were harmless, yet useful to those looking for 'em." However, bearing in mind the successful deletion of useless stubs in this category per overwhelming concensus, it is clear that consensus can change. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. - Delete. Ohconfucius 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. MER-C 12:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge all or tell me what is flawed in the logic of these "are harmless, yet useful to those looking for 'em."? What actual harm do these do? --Docg 12:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per previous deletions. "What actual harm?" is not a good keep argument and AfD is not a vote-count.  Zun aid  ©  ®  15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "What actual harm" would it be to have an article for each of the mailboxes in my town (address, color, height, date installed, pickup times)? It would debase and devalue the Wikipedia project. If someone wants accurate and up to date info about radio/TV masts, they would be much better advised to look them up in the databases these articles were cut and pasted from, because these articles contain stale data. Edison 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment the logical problem with the "what harm" argument is that large amounts of articles on non-notable and non-encyclopedic material all take up space in the wikipedia database, and search complexity (and therefore server load and CPU demands) rise exponentially with a linear increase in the number of articles. Large numbers (how many have been deleted so far? 50? 100 in towers alone?) of articles on things such as unremarkable towers of the kind that dot every city in the world do nothing useful to justify the space they use. Wintermut3 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The devs have instructed us not to concern ourselves with server space. Deleted articles are still on the server anyhow.--Docg 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem necessary or notable in the least. Gan  fon  22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We DID have this discussion ages ago, and concensus was to keep. I don't see how, if they were deemed notable then they can be less notable now. I doubt I'd get away with trying to get Abraham Lincoln deleted on the basis that he's dead and no longer notable. (ok extreme example but.....) Jcuk 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * concensus was to keep Wrong. Consensus was to merge these things into a list of masts. Stand-alone articles? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all "Not harmful" is not an encyclopedic criterion. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And your reason for deletion is....?--Docg 01:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Those keep votes are relying on bogus arguments akin to "I like it". Please refer to the clearly listed pertinent links in the above nom showing the discussions which took place last year, as well as the very clear and unambiguous recent concensus on deletion of useless stubs. Nobody so far has clearly shown that these are any different to those which have gone before them: They clearly fail WP:N, and I contend they also fail WP:NOT and WP:NOT. So far, for the US articles alone, in excess of 300 stubs have been deleted (and 8 redirected) through AfD, and another 37 eliminated through prods, but who's counting? ;-) Ohconfucius 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what 'bogus' argument I've used. Actually, I don't like this article, it sucks. But the ownus isn't on the keep voters - keep is the default. So far I've seen no compelling argument for deletion. I've seen irrelevancies about the servers, and now an argument that says since you deleted the last lot (which I voted to keep), I'm not supposed to object to the deletion of this lot. You say lots of this has been deleted? Indeed, who is counting? --Docg 02:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "These are harmless" is exactly like "I like it". Anyhow, whilst you may be right about WP:NOT, I contest your assertion that consensus in 16 separate AfD debates doesn't matter. In addition, I did not notice your participation in any recent debates, contrary to your assertion. I argue once again for your benefit that these fail WP:N, fail WP:NOT, fail WP:NOT Ohconfucius 05:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * note: I know that server use isn't a valid reason for deletion, but it is a counterargument to "it does no harm" because tons of mostly useless articles do indeed have a hidden harm in terms of the usability of the encyclopedia. Besides, we have WP:N and WP:NOT criterion for a reason.  To the above, the onus is not on delete votes to prove there is some harm caused, only that some aspect of policy or guideline is violated.  In these cases, as they fail WP:N the towers pretty much would require an outstanding exception to keep, one I don't think is waranted under these situations (but I reserve the right to state that other articles may deserve that on the basis of other policy at some later time).  Wintermut3 03:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Per the many previous discussions.  Vegaswikian 01:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. When a radio tower is elected president they will be notable. Static Universe 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and repeat, no indication any of these are notable. Seraphimblade 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable, notable, and useful. Should be expanded, as this tower has been the subject of multiple news articles and some amount of local controversy; see, among others, . Not to mention that this is one of the tallest structures in the world. --Delirium 13:08, 16 January 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.