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. —Cryptic 04:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transmitter Truc de Fortunio

[edit]

Contested prod by JYolkowski with the comments "cleanup is done by editing or merging, not deleting". However, there is nothing in these stubs which in any way suggests (whether in terms of height or construction) that these are but very pedestrian and uninteresting structures. The exception is Mont du Chat claims to have "very special design. It consists of a concrete tower, which is surrounded by a lattice tower", but does not explain why this construction is so special. Another editor has used the ((local|community)) tag on it. I say "Yawn". There is ample precedence for deletion of this collection of useless stubs. Improve or delete. Ohconfucius 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The tower at Mont du Chat, in Savoy, may be viewed in the article "Les relais hertziens", it does not appear exceptional, just one of a common radio tower type. The Salbert Transmission Tower is more interesting from an architectural point of view. Image at "Salbert Transmission Tower". My problem is that this AfD is just for four of a large class of articles that detail radio masts, see Category:Guyed masts and Category:Mast stubs, most of the articles are at present of the short type like these five, but some are quite detailed like Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona which is on the request for deletion list of 29 December. I find these infinitely more valuable than stubs about individual Eurovision song titles, but I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals. As such I would question the "of local interest only" tag. In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species. Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, it might be appropriate to ask those interested to develop guidelines for inclusion of individual tower articles, as opposed to general articles like maybe, Radio Towers of France, or maybe by mountain range Radio Towers of the Pyrenees. The general articles could have tables that provide the information now provided by these stubs, and where a full article is appropriate, say like Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona, then they could provide a link. --Bejnar 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The continued push to cleanup appears to be flushing out a good, sensible debate, but we have yet to hear from those who planted the stubs. Of course, views of those creators are welcome, but they must only help shape and not override wikipedia's policies. I have tried to make my approach and justifications clear, and I had hoped that my essay would help further that understanding. I felt that these masts (above) were slightly different from those delete before en masse in that they are not the huge American monsters, and that someone clearly opposed their deletion per WP:PROD, so I took the liberty of listing them separately. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't hold me responsible for the [over]zealous efforts of other editors wanting to delete all masts in an undiscriminating manner. I would urge you to concentrate discussion on the deletions proposed here. Ohconfucius 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes, if those who created the articles would say in the first place what was notable, as Bejnar has just done, these continual discussions would not be necessary. I do not think there would be objection to keeping articles about structures that can be shown to be of particular interest by outside documentation. So I'd say

relist the Salbert tower for expansion, and delete the others. DGG 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If someone can assert that the Salbert Transmission Tower is notable, in the article, before this discussion closes then it can be kept. Otherwise it can be recreated with a new article that asserts its notability. Vegaswikian 22:25, 5 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.