Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by total road tunnel length

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. Geschichte (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by total road tunnel length

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:OR concerns. This feels like it should be a reasonable article topic, but I can't find sourcing that would justify it. There are a (very few) countries with government sources, but many of the (only 16) entries are sourced to Wikipedia lists of tunnels, or "The World's longest Tunnel Page" lists of tunnels (both likely incomplete. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable sources that suggest this is an item anyone in any reliable source has evert grouped countries by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this clearly violates Wikipedia's core principles on verifiability (WP:V); that aside, I can see no evidence of notability; this does not pass WP:LISTN as far as I can see. Using other Wikipedia articles as a source, themselves probably incomplete, just creates a Chinese whispers effect and should be strongly discouraged. Ultimately, this should be deleted because there is no evidence of notability for the topic itself and the information is highly unlikely to be anywhere near accurate. Spiderone 15:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this comes down to ones philosophy of how articles should come about. Should articles be gradually improved until they become good, or should they spring into existence fully formed? If you look at back in the history of may good articles, you will see that many of them start out as woefully incomplete stubs. I think this is a topic that could result in a good article in theory, but I agree that the list as it currently is is incomplete and therefore could be misleading. I think many articles in this state deserve to be kept because they have the potential to grow into something good as more editors contribute to it. That said, this article has existed for quite a while without any further growth, so it does not look improbable that it would just stay as it currently is. Amaurea (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is mainly WP:OR, fails WP:V and there are not sources discussing this as a group. I like the article and thought this would be an easy keep, but I couldn't find anything to satisfy N or V. If there are multiple RS showing this is discussed as a group and can verify the information, ping me and I will switch my !vote. // Timothy :: talk 19:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for, among other things, putting figures from different years for different countries in one table, from 2000 to 2020, and then ranking them. That makes absolutely no sense. There is no light at the end of these tunnels. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See nothing essential on this article for maintaining a stand-alone list. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2020 (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.