Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina 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 delete all. Proto::► 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina Tower[edit]

Following precedents (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for fuller list) of mast stub deletions, I'm nominatiing this batch of US masts below 520m in height. None of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. Ohconfucius 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I've generally agreed with most of the mass removal that has gone on here, and thank you for your effort, I'm interested at what point you intend to stop. When do these become notable for their height alone, whether or not they are stubs? I also believe that greater clarity and definiteness on this point will help you gain support for whichever remaining ones you intend to nominate, as several people clearly feel we are nearing that point. Akihabara 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Akihabara 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing notable about these masts as far as I can see. Jayden54 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Replying to Akihabara's comment, I can't speak for Ohconfucius, but I don't see a reason to set a height limit for notability - if the article only contains the info from List of masts then scrap the article. If there is more to be said about a mast, which can't fit into the list, then it gets its own page. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now gone as far as I intended according to the arguments set, with penultimate and final AfD (barring contested prods to be brought here) and a number of prods to take care of the remaining US mast/tower stubs. I should also have prodded most of the properly categorised stubs from other countries now ;-) Ohconfucius 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - and, as in the prior prods (in answer to Akihabara) it doesn't appear that height alone has been a criteria in these, as long as there was something notable about the tower (architecture, history, notable controversy) it was removed from the AfD and handled on its own. SkierRMH,00:29, 8 January 2007 (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.