Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early conceptions of the Channel 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel

Redundant to Channel Tunnel. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely this topic is notable? In fact, there's a whole book about it: Channel Tunnel Visions, 1850-1945: Dreams and Nightmares by Keith M. Wilson, ISBN 1852851325. The history section of Channel Tunnel is about the history of the current tunnel project. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short article that could not be included in Channel Tunnel.--Grahame (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - This is definitely a notable topic in Anglo-French relations and engineering history. The book Richard Pinch mentions is a good source, though not, I think, the only one. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without a doubt a notable topic (see Massie's Dreadnought, which speaks of several books, plays, etc. on this topic from around the turn of the 20th century), but I'm not sure how well the article reflects this now. I myself can't add anything to the article, as I have no sources; even my copy of Dreadnought is hundreds of miles away from me at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be a reasonable article topic, especially if it was forked from the main article due to size or readibility considerations. I'm not sure that's what we have at the moment, though. I'm inclined to Keep, but let me look at this one. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No point unless it is expanded. If its going to remain as short as this, there is no reason at all to make a separate article. DGG (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At 61KB, the Channel Tunnel article would probably benefit from a spin-off, with Channel Tunnel#History being the foundation for an article, and "early conceptions" becoming a part of the spin-off. Hard to believe that it's been open now from almost fifteen years. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2008 (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.