Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmis TV Tower Omaha

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 of the debate was redirect as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions#Mast stubs. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emmis TV Tower Omaha

Delete. A single FCC Licensed TV Tower in Omaha. Not-notable. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep just one of over 600 listed radio and or T.V. masts listed on List of masts. If we delete this one, we might as well delete them all and most of the 600 listed have their own articles.--MONGO 03:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
That's truly unbelievable. I would will vote to Delete but that is pretty irrefutable evidence that towers are in. based on the comments posted below. Eusebeus 10:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Mongo. Is this tower any less notable than the other hundreds of tower articles, or are we just picking random ones for deletion? Astrokey44 12:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable landmark. Rhollenton 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there anything more that can be said about this tower? That is to say, is there any hope that this article will ever be more than a two-sentence substub stating nothing more than that the tower exists? If not, then merge into List of masts, and do the same for any of the others that are in a similar situation. — Haeleth Talk 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Mastcruft. Quite clearly there's no point in voting delete when pointy metal transmitters are automatically notable, I just wanted to use the word 'mastcruft'. (Unless someone or someones created 600 articles all at once to generate the illusion of precedent, but I doubt that.) --Last Malthusian 15:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Might as well make my position clear. Delete this article as per centralized discussion, no others. I'm sure the majority of the others are yellow pages (that's what a quick sample shows), but a blanket delete, which we know for a fact would include articles which are encyclopaedic, is just wrong. --Last Malthusian 09:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better yet, Delete All 600 articles, and use an exteral link from a generic article on masts. Under no circumstances should all of them be listed. If you're a mast lover, use Google. JanesDaddy 18:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I was this close: >----< to changing to a Delete All per you, but I've no idea how that could actually be done within Wikipedia procedures. --Last Malthusian 19:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (all). Masts. Masts. I long for the days when people were trying to claim high schools were notable. I mean, that at least made sense. Good grief. Lord Bob 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL @ Bob. I voted to keep, but for your sake Bob I won't start my planned series on individual guy wires, K? Herostratus 04:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another mast. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think we should decide what would make a tower notable enough for inclusion and delete those that aren't all at once. I think height is the main claim to fame for towers, so how high should the towers have to be? How about the top 10 in any country (but only if over 500 feet/150 meters) and the top 50 in the world, unless there is another claim to notability? The list could remain, just without articles for every tower. -- Kjkolb 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of establishing criteria, but I would argue that's too broad, since by the time we're talking about Canada's eighth-tallest mast we're talking about a pretty boring mast. I would argue top ten in the world or first/having held first in any country would be better. Lord Bob 01:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to list of masts. Been there, done that -- this issue's been considered before. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions#Mast stubs:

[edit] Mast stubs

1) The table in list of masts should have added columns for Location, Coordinates, Purpose, Owner and FCC registration.
2) Mast articles should be merged and redirected with this list, unless they contain substantial additional information that does not fit in the list (for instance, Warsaw radio mast).
3) If the list gets overly large, it should be broken up by country (or possibly, region).

--Calton | Talk 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Calton. #2 is a problem because non-notable towers are allowed to have articles if they have a substantial amount of information not on the list. I looked at the list and there are many non-notable towers that have a large paragraph or two. Also, no one seems to be working on redirecting the stubs to the list. In fact, more articles are still being added. -- Kjkolb 03:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delette, no real potential for expansion. Stifle 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for merge itno Mast List per Carlton. Do NOT delete all the masts, as some have suggested. Mmmmmmkay? Herostratus 06:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most individual towers are not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn mast --Jaranda wat's sup 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


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.