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. Martial BACQUET 11:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

London tunnel run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Although this mentions some media coverage, I can't find any coverage other than on blogs & fansites. As this article has been up for some months — and is a long and reasonably well written article — it doesn't seem appropriate either to prod it as non-notable or speedy it as an advert (which it does read like). However, despite all the effort that's gone into it I can't see anything that stops this article being a puff-piece for a non-notable club, albeit a far better quality one than most; the sole mention I can find on anything approaching a reliable source is nothing but a Youtube clip with no text. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage on Channel 4, as cited, seems adequate notability. Colonel Warden 21:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It hasn't been covered on Channel 4 - someone has uploaded a clip to a page hosted on the Channel 4 website. Not the same thing... — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close enough. The cited Sky One coverage seems even more notable. Colonel Warden 22:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sounds interesting Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Generally-unhelpful comments made by single-purpose accounts and IP addresses moved to talk page. Daniel 01:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the fact that the AFD is being disrupted Will ^(talk) 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Greswik 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cited sources attest to the existence of some kind of tunnel racing, but do not back up any of the assertions in the article, which is original research and unverifiable. Chick Bowen 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now, AFD view reserved - the actual subject matter seems potentially notable. But the article is so full of fancruft and fan oriented, and so unencyclopedic in style and approach, it's hard to tell. If it were trimmed back and put in a proper structure and context, cited, and so on, it could well possibly be encyclopedic. But AFD custom is very clear: articles that are sufficiently poorly written and cited may be deleted without prejudice until such a time a proper article is written. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to this part of the discussion; Sky one and Autocar reference material both refers to the subject directly by name and states that no racing takes place which were the main assertions of the original article submitted. I will review it to have less "fancruft" as you put it. I did include the negative aspect Islington Gazette reference material to give more balance to the article. If I find any more articles either positive or negative I will host and add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources exist - Having worked on the article somewhat, it seems likely it's encyclopedic. But unless reliable independent sources that give significant coverage are demonstrated, the decision has to be delete without prejudice. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely speedy keep - credible independent coverage found, see below and updated article text. I'm now comfortable with the view this is encyclopedic, notable and has sources permitting an article to exist. And have rewritten a lot of it to reflect these sources. But note: article should be neutral, not fancruft. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Two comments containing possibly valuable links had been moved to the talk page. AFD closer should be aware these were identified as SPA's. Now reverted since potentially useful. Sorry 'bout the messy refactor user:FT2: Keep [SPA]. Media citations below: [1] [2] [3] Tina Kant-Bearssed 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)— Tina Kant-Bearssed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Keep [SPA] - Scan of published Autocar article http://me-tan.wtfux.org/vehicles/TunnelRun/Autocar0206TunnelRun.jpg - Scan of published USA magazine article http://me-tan.wtfux.org/vehicles/TunnelRun/USA-TunnelRunRides.jpg - ME-tan2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) — ME-tan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. After the changes to this article, I still stand by my "delete" argument above. The "organisation" section and half the "background" section are still completely unsourced. Without them, there's nothing to make clear the significance of this alleged sport. There are basically two kinds of sources--complaints about the nuisance of people gunning their engines in tunnels, and hobbyist magazines takling about a hobby. Neither of them supports the assertion that this is an organized activity. Chick Bowen 18:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - new updates swing it. Artw 06:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough references to reliable third party sources to establish notability. --Kudret abi^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2007 (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.