Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel

This is original research. All reliable sources only talk about the rail tunnel. (Talk:Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel has details on the one that refers to a highway.) There are no Google hits for "Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel". Contested prod and speedy (tagged for speedy because the author blanked it). None of the references even talk about this specific proposal - and only one, a random newsgroup post, talks about anything similar. I have studied the history of the roads in this area and have never seen any official proposals for such a road. --SPUI (T - C) 06:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, although the article does look good. If reliable sources were found for the first paragraph of "Tunnel location and characteristics" and for "Tunnel benefits and limitations" I'd vote keep. Melchoir 06:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, the author went on to create Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel, which talks about a real (and "notable") proposal, and which I have nominated for DYK. --SPUI (T - C) 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The rail proposal is a legitimate topic. This appears to be original research although very well written. Capitalistroadster 09:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I found some sources that suggest this is a legitimate proposal in reviewing the links provided at the end. However they may not be reliable ones, as SPUI points out. The author needs to give reliable sources for the material in there, or this article should be userified but Keep pending verification. If a reaonable time elapses (a month, at the most) and nothing has been done, userify. (I was the person contesting the prod/speedy) ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There's one source that talks about a similar tunnel (not even the same one), and it's a random posting to a newsgroup. --SPUI (T - C) 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR very little to be saved that is not OR a very well wrtieen proposal but it seems like an argument to proceed with such a plan rather than reporting that there is such a plan.--Nick Y. 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • That's the one. But the article is too well written to just up and delete. Hence my view that time should be given to find other sources, and if they do not exist, then delete. Meanwhile userify if it really doesn't work for you to have it in artclespace. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. The content seems to be well written but too early to have its own article.--Jusjih 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but rewrite to an article about the generic "proposal", not this particular plan specifically Lankiveil 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Redirect or Delete. Vegaswikian 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete OR very little to be saved that is not OR a very well wrtieen proposal but it seems like an argument to proceed with such a plan rather than reporting that there is such a plan.--Nick Y. 22:39, 25 May 2006 (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.