Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillsboro wireless 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro wireless tower[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would say this article pertains to WP:FAN's of Oregon. The article also provides a reference for its being torn down some 60 years ago. I don't beleive the sources would indicate that the unnamed tower is notable. Not sure where to catagorize this. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is unclear what basis there is for deleting the article. Notability is mentioned, but the cited claim it was the second tallest steel tower in the world easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NN. Also mentioned is that it was torn down a long time ago. That is not cause for deletion, otherwise articles about long dead people and, say, RMS Titanic should be deleted too. —EncMstr (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. But don't exceptional claims require exceptional sources? We are taking the Hillsboro Argus' word on the matter? For all we know it is a hoax on their part. I'm also unsure as to how being the second number anything makes it automatically notable. If it were the second tallest building then I could agree. If it were the tallest tower I could agree. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 60+ story tall tower seems reasonable for the intended purpose, and it also seems likely to really have been the second tallest in the world in 1921. The combined claim does not seem particularly exceptional. Even if it were, it is not a basis for deleting the article. —EncMstr (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EncMstr - I've also found this: [1]. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that link is a WP mirror. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - height appears notable and properly sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes the WP:GNG. Not to mention, did the nominator make a good faith effort to find sources prior to nomination? I just did and found plenty more, thus the public policy behind the rule. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, likely WP:SNOWBALL. Discussion of whether it's the second whatnot doesn't matter, it clearly passes WP:GNG. -Pete (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.