Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimean 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The claims to multiple independent sources has been acutely debunked by Uncle G with no reply in nearly a whole week. Consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Crimean tunnel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

TOOSOON. A proposed tunnel project that hasn't been built, despite several years of discussions, is not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Russia,  and Ukraine. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Recently there has been a lot of news about building a Crimean tunnel due to a leak This should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. this isn't a current project, but is an inevitable project. Current discussions of the project are important to document. Thor gunthorson (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A project that has supposedly been in development since 2018 but for which there are no finalized plans, no budget allocated, and no ground broken is not "inevitable". voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there are articles where these plans can be mentioned. Delete Marcelus (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep in the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * There isn't enough sourcing. Inasmuch as most of the other sources are for background that couldn't possibly be about this subject, because they pre-date it by years, this is basically all hanging off one news cycle on 2023-11-24, and that in turn is almost all people re-reporting a Washington Post article.  (I went and had a look.  Everyone reported the Post's reporting.) There really isn't a second independent source for this, yet.  As such it fails the requirement for multiple independent good sources.  And this wouldn't be the first time that no-one else is able to back up some breathless exposé by the Post on what China is supposedly doing.  We always need multiple independent sources for good reasons, and the Post on China exemplifies one of them.  There hasn't been a "lot of news".  There has been one story.  And this isn't a newspaper. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are numerous different independent sources including the Kyiv Post an Moscow Times (a Russian newspaper in exile) which were both cited on here. I have another link to The Telegraph which is definitely a reliable source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/24/russia-china-discuss-building-underwater-tunnel-crimea/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You claim of independence is clearly falsified by the text of The Telegraph piece, which has "the Washington Post reported" in its second paragraph, and by the text of the Moscow Times piece that not only says "and reported by the Washington Post" even hyperlinks the word "reported" to the Post's piece. Simply put: you are double-counting things to inflate your sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2023 (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.