Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richland Towers Bithlo


 * 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. Proto :: ►  11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Richland Towers Bithlo


Following the same principles established as precedent (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts), I am seeking consensus on these two shared masts. I do not believe that these are in any way different to the others which have been swept out of wikipedia, but am willing to be proven wrong. These masts appear to be in use by several small radio/tv stations. but AFAICT, they are still just two non-notable masts. Ohconfucius 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - nothing notable about these masts... Jayden54 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Masts. Which, of course is already done except for the redirects, and delinking.  These two tower articles are about particularly uninteresting towers, unlike some that have been put up recently for deletion. I am disheartened by the language of the requester in his article User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, where he says "I am not embarked on a vendetta or crusade, but merely performing a systematic purge."  Before we perform a systematic purge, I think that we should ask the radio/television tower people to draft their own guidelines for what requires an individual tower article, and what can be satisfactorily dealt with in a table in a list article, or in a more detailed, but more general article such as Radio towers in France.  In many ways I view these radio tower articles like the Eurvision song articles, I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals.  In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species.  Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, let us get some guidelines. --Bejnar 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would appreciate it if you did not quote me out of context. The systematic purge is of useless stubs. Nobody so far has demonstrated how/why these stubs are useful, only that it could be useful or someone might find it useful, in a rather crystal-ballish fashion. Ohconfucius 02:18, 3 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.