Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. If anyone would like to merge it somewhere, the entire content was: "The FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki is a 288 metre mast for FM and TV broadcasts located at Choragwica near Wieliczka in Poland (Geographical Coordinates: 49°57'N, 20°5' E)." Sandstein 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki[edit]

FM- and TV-Mast Choragwica k. Wieliczki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. Mast is a few meters short of the 300-meter-and-up criterion to get into the List of masts article. Delete as NN mast. —EdGl 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wow. I can see gamecruft, TVcruft, and bookcruft every day, but rarely do I see broadcastingcruft. -Amarkov blahedits 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as broadcastingcruft. Hello32020 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as broadcastingcruft. Sr13 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mastcruft (broadcastingcruft is such a last-week concept ;) ). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above xxpor yo!|see what i've done 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. MER-C 03:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cease transmission! per above. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless somebody points to to Wikipedia:Notability (masts). Do we have a rule that 'above 300, notable, under, not'? There are several smaller structures at List of tallest structures in Poland, should we delete them too?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the general notablility guideline? It certainly doesn't meet that. -Amarkov blahedits 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see what's different about this mast and half the masts from Category:Mast stubs. I looked at 5, and found a 190m and 200m; neither making any claim to being more notable. I would support creating a specific guideline and pruning the category, but until then I can't see why we should delete this particular mast and keep a hundred or so similar ones.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we weren't aware of those? I'm going to nominate the 190m one right now, and think on the other. -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mhm, would you care to look through the rest of the category? I had time to look through short 'G' category, and found a 100m, 200m and unknown-height one. Pure extrapolation suggest we are looking at about ~50 below <300m in this stub category - and I am still waiting to see why height is important, as far as I am concern, 99% of those masts are not notable - they are masts, who cares about their height (I can see how it could matter, but do we have a height notability guideline?).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:INN. -Amarkov blahedits 05:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jeez! Can Wikipedia get anymore booooring??? C'mon, fan cruft, but mastcruft? Who the heck writes an article about a mast? Its a clump of steel people! Spawn Man 08:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Buildings and radio stations need to fulfill some guidelines and this mast isn't the highest in the country or its immediate neighbouring ones as far as I can tell. I see no reason keep it. For comparison: the Euromast is shorter, but it isn't a radio mast; it's a recognized symbol of Rotterdam. Now, that is a reasons to keep. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete this information, which lacks any depth, can be just as easily maintained in the article on the local town, see WP:LOCAL.-- danntm T C 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and definitely expand. Tall structures are interesting and there's no reason not to include them, but additional textual and photographic data should definitely be included. --Ouro 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this looks to be factual, verifiable, and of interest to at least some people, I can't see any good reason to delete it. Certainly the criteria for the 'list of masts' article is not deletion criteria. Trollderella 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - boring, boring non-notable mastcruft. Moreschi 18:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You finding it boring is not a good reason to delete. Trollderella 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mast being non-notable is a perfectly good reason to delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is true doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on it if the subject has no claim to notability. And the article is boring, remarkably so. Moreschi 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of things can be shown to exist, such as every mail box, fire truck, school bus or telephone pole in the world, but why should they be in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. Even if telephone pole fanciers started a telephone pole project and entered the height, type of wood, GPS coordinates and age of each one. (My God, its starting to sound as reasonable as the existing projects for elementary schools, shopping malls, hiways and bus stops!)Edison 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, a strawman! Well done, but we are not talking about those, we're talking about unique broadcasting masts. If there is not enough information to write an article, then they should be merged. Simple, no deletion required. Trollderella 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWhat would these sub-stubby articles be merged to? There absolutely should be an article on broadcast towers. I found articles on radio, television, broadcasting and even transmitter but none on the towers which hold the antenna. It would be beneficial for some tower buff to write such an article, giving the history of towers and mentioning those which are historic or otherwise notable. Such an article would be more interesting and valuable than adding a stub for every such tower in the world. Finally found Radio masts and towers and added Wikilinks to that article from Broadcasting and transmitter. Not sure how to do it, but there should be a redirect from Broadcast tower to make Radio masts and towers easier to find.Edison 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable structure. Could be speedied if we wrote guidelines for mast article that don't claim notability. But even that guideline would be silly. Anyway, to be notable, I would expect at least a few sources to describe this mast in a non trivial way. The fact that other masts are equally non notable is not reason to keep this. Bring them on (in a group) and we can make Wikipedia a better encycolpedia.Obina 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Some day I hope to find a definition of "random facts". Are those facts with no correlation to each other? If so then a list of towers is not random. :-) — RJH (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to the article about the town. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable broadcasting facility serves multiple broadcasting outlets in Poland. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn broadcasting facility. Eusebeus 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Wieliczka per WP:LOCAL. No a record holder of any description. Ohconfucius 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no real reason given for deletion. Not convinced that masts aren't notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not convinced that 'notability' is part of Articles for deletion criteria! Trollderella 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Polishpolecruft or [WP:NOT]] an indiscriminate collection of information. Some broadcasting towers merit their own articles: the Kamzík TV Tower is an interesting structure and local landmark, and so on. This is simply a directory entry, as most polecruft must be (unless Edison's WP:BEANS suggestions are taken up). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. WMMartin 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, per all the above points. It should not be deleted. Sharkface217 03:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete As someone who has an interest in broadcasting, I can see people's arguments for keeping it; however, in its current state there is nothing to assert notability. When there is something that asserts its notability, then it can be re-created. --SunStar Net 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mast. Herostratus 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not all masts are inherently notable. Not a valid reason to keep. —EdGl 02:33, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FM-_and_TV-Mast_Choragwica_k._Wieliczki&oldid=1137840324"