Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WKMX FM Tower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
WKMX FM Tower[edit]
I think any antenna owned and operated by a station should be described in the station's article. List of masts can have a section for antennas owned and operated by a station. Gazpacho 10:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the policy discussion taking place on mast articles at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. There are currently hundreds of similar articles, and handling them one by one through VfD probably isn't the best way to deal with them. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, directory style information. WP is not a mast directory. Well, actually it's becoming one, but I think that's a mistake. This information can be obtained from the FCC for masts in the U.S. I've seen the policy discussion, but if vast majority of the masts are to be deleted, we have to start somewhere. It's unfortunate that WP has hundreds of articles on non-notable masts, but here is an opportunity to make it a little bit better. Individual articles providing directory-style info for each insignificant mast are a profoundly poor way to present this information anyway. Quale 17:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This information can be obtained from the FCC for masts in the U.S. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. All our information is available from elsewhere--if it wasn't it would be unverifiable and unencyclopedic. I do have some sympathy with people who would like to see them grouped together, but this can be done by having a separate list article as at present. So keeping separate articles and lists is quite easily achievable and, in fact, what we have now. No change is required. You don't have to read the articles if they don't interest you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Tony, with all respect, I disagree completely. Encyclopedias are not directories, and the information collected on masts is not encyclopedic. Some mast information also requires constant update, something that the FCC does but that we are not equipped to do. Compare with directory information on restaurants in a city. It's constantly changing, so any entry gives only a point in time when the article was created. It's quite possible that the restaurant will be out of business when you read the article, and its very likely that WP wouldn't have correctly updated the article. (This isn't an argument against WP articles on notable restaurants, just that WP should not have articles on all restaurants.) Directories require regular maintenance, with entries updated every year or more often. WP is not set up to provide that. Nor are traditional encyclopedias, which is a large reason why directory information is considered not encyclopedic. Everything in the yellow pages is verifiable, but it isn't encyclopedic. THe mast articles are yellow pages for masts. There's a reason why encyclopedias, almanacs, and directories are separate works. WP is an encyclopedia, or at least it's trying to be. There are better places for directories. Quale 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This information can be obtained from the FCC for masts in the U.S. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. All our information is available from elsewhere--if it wasn't it would be unverifiable and unencyclopedic. I do have some sympathy with people who would like to see them grouped together, but this can be done by having a separate list article as at present. So keeping separate articles and lists is quite easily achievable and, in fact, what we have now. No change is required. You don't have to read the articles if they don't interest you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. — RJH 19:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, or wait for the policy discussion. Kappa 19:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suggest that no more votes should be made on this until the policy discussion is complete. Until then, all comments should be addressed there. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per the developing consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. --Carnildo 21:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until a policy is established. I didn't know about the discussion. Gazpacho 22:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Big towers are notable. Klonimus 05:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote since these latest contributions are under scrutiny, but as someone who works in the broadcast industry, towers and tower sites are just a part of doing business. Unless we're talking about a landmark tower like Mount Sutro in San Francisco or a well-known site like Mount Wilson in LA, we're not talking about anything even remotely resembling encyclopedic IMO. AM arrays are big, tall steel trusses and FM arrays look like they're made up of rototiller blades. One FM I worked at had a solid state transmitter installed in an old portable shed and the rototillers were mounted on a wooden pole. If anyone wants info on US broadcast towers, let 'em go to the FCC. - Lucky 6.9 21:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It dawned on me that this is really good info for articles on individual stations. I still think that these don't make for particularly useful or even necessary articles. I don't think I'd look up the tower coordinates before looking up WKMX. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.