Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Dakota TV Tower

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

===South Dakota TV Tower, Corridor TV Tower, Southeastern Media Tower Beech Island, Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Caesars Head, WRJA-TV-FM Tower, Barnacle Broadcasting Tower Port Royale, KTMD-TV Tower, Cox Radio Tower Security and South Carolina Educational TV tower Sumter===

Little more than a listing of coordinates and a link. I don't think we need separate articles for these items, particularly when there is already a rather lengthy List of masts. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 20:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see also a Deletion policy/Masts|policy proposal]] proposing a mass merge of masts into the List of masts.
 * Keep, I'm sure it has a history, and tall things are local landmarks. Kappa 20:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. If not kept, they should be merged with their local area. Kappa 22:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all the dozens of individual tower articles cluttering Wikipedia, unless the particular tower is notable in some way that makes it distinct from other towers. Every town and city of any size has several of these, so there must be thousands of them around the world.  The tallest tower in the world definitely deserves an article; a tower that introduced a new method of construction or support deserves an article; but the 17th tallest tower that looks just like the other 16 towers, only shorter, doesn't.  RussBlau 21:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a steel truss 400 meters tall.  What more is there to say about it? --Carnildo 23:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Who built it and why, design choices to suit it to the local site, conroversy, what its used for, its history. lots of things can be said. Klonimus 14:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all towers. These simply aren't notable, and they're not local landmarks. This information could easily go on a list, but does not deserve its own article. Meelar (talk) 23:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All major infrastructure is inherently "notable".--Gene_poole 02:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to say Delete, since all notable infrastructure can go in a table in one article...but perhaps this is an area for a policy consensus discussion? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Feel free to start one, I'll clean up some old ones asap. Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to say about it. Delete this and all TV/radio tower articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, cruft. Megan1967 05:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- reasons exist to keep the List of masts and associated mast articles. If they're suitable for Wikipedia, so is this. - Longhair | Talk 06:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep All major infrastructure is inherently "notable" and worthy of inclusion in a truely great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 14:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of masts Radiant_* 08:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles contain all basic information for a tatter expansion! The table on List of masts has no column for location data! It has only a column for the country and when you write KTMD-TV Tower is in USA the statement does not give much information, because the USA is very big! Even for small countries an exact location data is necessary and because of the fact that radio masts are almost outside urban areas geographical coordinates are very useful to give the exact location and are often listed in transmitter tables. Keep them!
 * Above remark by User:85.74.13.16, who has twenty edits. He accidentally bolded the word 'keep' twice, I've unbolded one to prevent confusion.
 * Why can't you just change the formatting of the table on List of masts to include the additional information you think is notable? RussBlau 13:24, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's already a forum for these towers, and it's List of masts.  There just is not enough information on each individual tower to warrant a separate article.   It's not that I object to the information being presented somewhere, it's just that I think a separate article is not warranted.  Why not expand the table on List of masts as RussBlau suggests? (And thanks, Radiant, for merging the VfDs!) &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 13:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, IMO notableDeirYassin 11:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * For once I agree with DeirYassin. Klonimus 14:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of masts, which really should be reduced to a list; the other information belongs in Radio tower, Radio mast, and so on.
 * Forgot to sign this &mdash;Wahoofive (Talk) 21:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per the reasoning of RussBlau 21:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC).  &mdash;msh210 19:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nearly all the mast articles, as described by RussBlau. CDC   (talk)  20:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have started a policy discussion on the family of mast articles. Please contribute policy suggestions and comments here. (Pardon the use of bold type.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the articles and give them a chance to expand! They all contain detailed basic informations for further research (location, geographical coordinates, height, owner). Please give them some time to expand! Perhaps know some people in the neighbourhood more about them, but did not find enough time to post their knowledge. Are there no radio engineers of the USA with more data?
 * Above by User:85.74.11.10, whose IP traces to the same ISP as the above anon user, who has already voted. In response to your points, what else could possibly be added to expand the article? It's just raw data -- and Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all really tall towers are legitimate subjects. Wikipedia isn't paper. Oliver Chettle 04:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into list&mdash;there is no hope of expansion, because what more can you say about these? It's just a data dump in multiple parts.  Postdlf 04:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep all. Deleting or even merging these will be a huge loss of information. Let them expand. N-Mantalk 12:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * anything but a delete - I wish users would respect the earnest work of others. Lotsofissues 23:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Earnest work of others isn't beneficial to wikipedia if it's non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Quale 05:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge - a list will organize this information better. List of masts already exists. Only masts with substantial meaningful information beyond the list should have their own articles. The rest should be redirects to the list. - Pioneer-12 08:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.