Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathole tunnel

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rathole tunnel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no evidence that this term is used in this way. Any uses I can find seem to be simply a metaphor for a cramped tunnel, not one that specifically gets filled with locomotive fumes. NE2 00:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a gsearch indicates the term was indeed used in this way, and it may be a notable concept [1], [2], [3]. JJL (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first link is about a road tunnel. The second just uses it as a metaphor for a tunnel, with no indication that it's one of the tunnels described by our article. The third similarly describes a line with a lot of tunnels, but there's no evidence of it having fume problems. --NE2 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andrew Duffell (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to explain? --NE2 14:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just appears to be a made up article, more convinced if it had references to each of the tunnels being commonly refered to as Rathole tunnels rather than WP:OR. MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term appears genuine but could easily be covered in the article on tunnels. The list is just another unencyclopaedic list of examples. Everything's unsourced. Maybe make it a category, instead? Dricherby (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the term may appear to be valid, it is not clear from many of the examples what it describes. Lacking reliable sources for the meaning of the term, the article needs to go as WP:OR. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (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.