Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 1

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:46Z

Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 1

When proposing the Radio and TV masts for deletion, I never imagined that I would find articles for electricity pylons in wikipedia. Now I have been proven wrong. Watch out now for telephone boxes and lampadaires next! ;-) I propose the above articles for deletion first and above all because I do not see there is a place for them here in wikipedia WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Furthermore, I would say these utilitarian structures are of even less interest to the public than radio masts, and the articles are almost certain to remain stubs forever. SO WTF cares if they are the tallest pylons in any given country? I beg to move: Strong delete. Ohconfucius 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Pyloncruft. --Sable232 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's more crap in here. MER-C 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mein gott!, Trainspotters must be fun people after all... Ohconfucius 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bizarre in its obscurity. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just H 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Dear God, is this what passes for notable information, worthy of encyclopedic preservation? Charlie 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of everything that exists or has existed. Demiurge 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent reliable published references to show the notability of these pylons. Wow! The mailbox on the corner and the telephone pole behind my house don't have articles yet. Edison 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both wow, just wow. Absent independent sources indicating why we these particular pylons are unique and worthy of note, this article really should not exist.-- danntm ^T _C 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and on my way to create an article about this really beat up old mailbox (probably the oldest in my city)... arrgh... SkierRMH 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Big top 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Oh, and speaking of trainspotters, there's this.... --Calton | Talk 06:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete on both. I agree WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Davidpdx 08:31, 26 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.