Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower
Note that my complaint was with fans of roads, knighted Brits, soccer players, and Pokemons claiming "inherent notability" in the absence of  sources satisfying . The baronets or knights may have only a listing is a peerage book(a mere directory listing). The roads are referenced to a roadmap or a states online listing of paving bids (not a substantial nontrivial reference) or someone's hobby blog (not a reliable reference). The pokemons are referenced to a TV show (O.R. inferences throughout) or to the instruction manual of a video game (not independent). If the knight, road, or Pokemon had multiple nontrivial independent reliable sources their articles would absolutely not be an issue. My problem is with claims of inherent notability for the subjects some editors LIKE in the absence of sources satisfying  or , and then arbtrarily deleting articles some other fan of some other subject likes. I am not a big fan of any of the subjects named, and would like to see only articles for subjects with sources meeting WP policies for notability and attribution. No gimmes
— User:Edison, 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ATT||WP:N||WP:ATT (Wikipedia:Attribution)