Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalian Radio and TV 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. No particular article was specified as a possible merger target, but if anyone wants to merge this content somewhere, it's available on request. Sandstein 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalian Radio and TV Tower[edit]

Non-notable broadcasting tower. Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what makes a tower notable? I think 99% of those in Category:Mast stubs are not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The things listed in WP:NOTE, of course. I think that at least 75% in your category aren't, based on what I've seen. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking forward to seeing it pruned, I feel bad for the two we have singled out :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've prodded a few under 200 m tall with deletion reason "no assertion of notability", but my watchlist is now full. MER-C 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no good reason to delete this verifiable, useful information. I have literally no idea what you mean by a 'notable' mast, or what relevance it has to AFD. Trollderella 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. Is it the tallest, oldest, most frequently hit by airplanes. or in other ways notable? The article doesn't say so. So delete it unless it is shown to be worth an article.Edison 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's special about superlatives? We have articles about all sorts of items that are not the tallest, oldest, most frequently hit by airplanes. This is verifable, factual information of interest to some. No reason to delete it. Trollderella 18:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been the subject of multiple independent news stories? How is it of any interest beyond the station owners? Yes, it is needed to get the signal out, but so it the transmitter, and I don;t see articles on individual broadcast transmitters.

Merge into a list of towers; by nation if necessary. — RJH (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, nn. nn. WP:NOT Eusebeus 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merege. For reasons read the previous discussions on like topics and the consensus to keep these in a list. Vegaswikian 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. WMMartin 17:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per RJH.Sharkface217 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable landmark. Mukadderat 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide a source that anybody cares about it as a landmark? Obviously, if there is such a source, it should be kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 3 December 2006 (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.