Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyholttårnet

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 was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 01:56Z

[edit] Tyholttårnet

Tyholttårnet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yet another unremarkable tower. Deprodded on the basis that it has... (gasp!) ... a revolving restaurant! MER-C 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Actually, I found out that it's already in the list of towers. If so, then I'd say just delete it. ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of towers. CyberAnth 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's nothing worth merging per above... MER-C 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- I've read Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts but I'm not clear on exactly where the cut off is going to be regarding deleting articles on towers. What height or other criteria will qualify a tower as notable and therefore worthy of retaining? I'm not in favour of just deleting the few articles now tagged without a clear idea of where that cut off is going to be. Shawn in Montreal 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. What is the difference between this and other towers with revolving restaurants such as the Space Needle or the Calgary Tower? It's not in North America? --Charlene 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The main difference is height. MER-C 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, it's about 40 metres shorter. I'm still curious as to what the proposed cut off would be. The Norwegian tower is 124 metres. When does it become a notable tower? At 165 m? or more? And does anyone know if this is the tallest manmade structure in Norway?Shawn in Montreal 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it's the tallest in central Norway. That may well be damning with faint praise. I added that to the article, though. I'm still neutral.Shawn in Montreal 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not require its own article! NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without addressing the merits of this article, I'm concerned that the mast deletion is trying to define a consensus cutoff by sequential deletion of all towers and masts until the community says "stop". That is unlikely to recognize the appropriate cutoff, however, because of the overwhelmingly large number of inarguable legitimate deletions that have dominated this field for the last few weeks. I know the US masts nominations are up to everythign less then 500', and this one is edging up closer to corresponding landmark buildings like the Space Needle. That doesn't necessarily imply that I'd argue to keep this one (as the article stands, its pretty unpersuasive -- anyone able to search the Norwegian press?), but we might want to think about where we want to stop before we actually get there ... inertia being what it is. Serpent's Choice 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem I am having voting one way or the other is that it's not a mast. It's a self-supporting tower and a tourist attraction that happens to also be a radio tower. I don't think the mast guidelines apply. --Charlene 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll admit: I was the one so impressed by the... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant that I deprodded this. I also deprodded the probably very unremarkable Fernsehturm Kulpenberg which could very smoothly be merged to the one-line substub on the Kulpenberg, the mountain it stands on. Not being an expert on these things, my intuition still tells me that there is a difference between a mast and a tower, especially one with a ... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant. A tower which is the highest in its region and has a... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant is obviously a frequently visited landmark in that area. However else would the restaurant make a profit? I wonder why whoever prodded these towers, if s/he felt they were unworthy of articles of their own, did not consider merging (or simply redirecting) them somewhere. It doesn't save any server space to have them go through the deletion process. And the most obvious merge target here is not the List of towers, but the article on Trondheim. up◦land 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
there is indeed a distinction between a guyed mast (which is basically a big antenna, right?) and a tower supporting a revolving restaurant. I didn't care for the "gasp" wisecrack either, btw. Shawn in Montreal 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*Merge into List of Towers AND article on Trondheim, per above suggestion. I've supplied a link from the Fodors website to the tower article, indicating that it is a bone fide attraction in the region, so a merge into the main city article is indicated, in my view. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Keep. I wanted to sleep on this and see if anyone from Norway came in and spoke out in favour of retaining. Eivind, below, is good enough for me. He is a person of some experience, judging by his user page, and confirms what I've been feeling. Shawn in Montreal 17:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a well known landmark in Trondheim. --E ivind t@c 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as landmark and tourist attraction. -Freekee 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not just another tower, but per Freekee, an important landmark and tourist attraction. --Oakshade 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Long Live the Restaurant Revolution!. up◦land 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (I didn't !vote in my comment above.)
  • Comment I am leaning towards a weak keep for the subject. I reckoned that this would be slightly controversial AfD, and was not within the scope of what I was trying to do with the mass deletes I initiated. In response to those citing 'keep' per "famous landmark/tourist attraction", I would urge them to cite sources of guide books so we can put this one to bed. Ohconfucius 18:12, 1 January 2007 (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.