Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Tube Challenges


 * 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. Courcelles 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Tube Challenges

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article does not claim any notability on the subject of 'alternative tube challenges'. It's almost completely used as a fansite by people from tubeforum.co.uk, and is full of original research and unsourced/poorly sourced claims. Whereas the original 'tube challenge' is notable, an article on 'variations of the tube challenge' is best left as a section in a reliably sourced and much shortened Tube Challenge article. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, only references are blogs, forum postings, and personal webpages. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly Delete. Quite like the idea of this, but Wikipedia is not the place for games you made up on an internet message board. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Six references, all of which fail WP:RS by a country mile. One thing to note: there are four redirects to this page. Most of these are useless, but Tube Olympics may be worth redirecting to the main Tube Challenge page. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see no reason at all why this needs to exist as a separate article. Estesark (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (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.