Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transatlantic 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 keep. John254 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transatlantic tunnel

Transatlantic tunnel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A proposal for a tunnel not likely to be built for a very,very long time and not being currently seriously considered by anyone has no place in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. FWIW, there is no proposal there per se. What there is is a perfectly acceptable article on various proposals that have been made over the years. As such, it has every right to be in Wikipedia, just as much as other proposals that have been made but are as yet impractical or impossible. Should we also delete Interstellar travel or Dyson sphere, since there are "proposals for things not likely to occur for a very, very long time", or Pangaea Ultima, a theory relating to something which will not occur for hundreds of millions of years, if at all? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it is original research for a nominator to decide that some extreme engineering proposal should not have an article because he judges it to be unfeasible. Google book search shows 195 references for "transatlantic tunnel." Some are science fiction. It is still a notable concept because it has been given substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources over a long period of time. That said, I would not ride it on a dare. Edison 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Grutness and Edison. Just because this is a proposal that won't become realistic for some time, its article shouldn't automatically be deleted just for that reason. --FlyingPenguins 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The article serves a purpose stating that no such thing exists and none is soon likely for specific technical and economic reasons. Such an article is useful for many purposes, such as debunking investing scams, engineering fallacies, technical dares, and the like. It also serves to provide a nexus for similar ideas. —EncMstr 07:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly, the article doesn't look at this as an investment scam or an engineering dare or fallacy. I suppose it COULD be done in case mankind decides air or sea travel are impossible. Maybe this article can be moved to Really idiotic ideas and other examples can be added. Yes, there have been some fictional references to this, but emphasis on the word "fictional"... you can probably find lots of Google book references to angels dancing on the head of a pin or a Stairway to Heaven (oops, that actually was engineered in a studio). But a 3,100 mile long tunnel? Would you feel differently if there was an article called "Transatlantic bridge"? Natl1 is right. This is a silly article about a hypothetical concept that people talked about 100 years ago. Mandsford 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't that an argument for keeping it? If an idea has been around for so long, then it's a worthy article for expansion, not deletion. —EncMstr 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see this as being any less worthy of an article than many of the other articles on Wiki regarding proposed plans, etc. As long as it's cited, etc. etc. In response to Mandsford's comment above, it looks to me as if WP:IDONTLIKEIT is rearing its head there. The question is whether the topic is a viable and notable topic for Wikipedia and as far as I'm concerned it satisfies the criteria and is just as worthy as Bering Strait bridge, which could also be considered a "really idiotic idea", too (I just noticed they're considering a tunnel for it, too). 23skidoo 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Response No, I love it. Lots of little kids think it would be neat if there was a tunnel under the ocean, and it shows a wonderful curiosity about the world, and that type of naivete in a child is okay. The same qualities in an adult are kind of sad. Mandsford 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Same might have been said about space travel a hundred years ago or transoceanic telegraph cables two hundred years ago. Thankfully, there are still enough borderline nut-jobs at DARPA, in the academic realm, etc. that can mill such things over till they find efficient ways to implement them. That said, even if this never becomes something that can be effectively/efficiently implemented, it still meets WP:NOTE. MrZaius^talk 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I thought about the space travel analogy... would someone in the 1920s have thought that America and Russia should, let alone would, spend billions of dollars on trying to send a rocket to the moon? On the other hand, there was an argument that a transatlantic cable or development space flight would be inventions that were the offspring of necessity. We're not voting on a budget here, and I see this debate is going to result in a keep vote, but is there any circumstance where there would ever be a need for a transatlantic tunnel? I compare it to "digging a hole to China" Mandsford 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: For the people who are saying Keep, please keep in mind that there are probably thousands of similar major, at this time absurd, infrastructure proposals which aren't guaranteed or even likely to occur and these proposals have always been around. Would you like to make an article about those ideas in your head too.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• If someone uses the ideas in my head as the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary and as a plot element in numerous works of science fiction (one of them written by no less of a persona than Nevinyrral himself), then yes. Furthermore, I'm still not seeing how this is supposedly any different from a Dyson sphere, surely that too is an outworldly concept nobody can ever build? --Agamemnon2 11:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, because although such a tunnel is entirely hypothetical it does appear to be an established sci-fi concept. However, in it's present state the article has no references and so tends to read as original research, and this is something that needs to be addressed. PC78 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep to respond to Natl1, this is not just something made up after school one day. This is the subject of a number of published works of science fiction and this is the subject of a Discovery Channel special. Much like space elevator et al, this theoretical infrastructure project is less a violation of WP:NOT than a notable concept in science fiction and notable topic of scientific discussion like the slightly more outlandish, but still notable, strategies described at Mitigation of global warming. Sure as hell need citations here, but deletion isn't warranted. Plain enough that adequate sources are available to make a stronger case for notability. MrZaius^talk 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) PS: There are obviously a ton and a half of book and scholarly sources as well that can be used to write a clean citation. Also a nice published and quotable Harrison essay
• Strong keep. Per all of the above obvious reasons. • Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - multiple independent references (albeit mostly fictional) so passes notability test. "Not likely to be built" is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Gandalf61 and others.Biophys 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- People have been dreaming about it for a long time, and will almost certainly continue to do so... AnonMoos 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, until they have to itemize their tax returns. Mandsford 17:34, 12 September 2007 (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.