Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan Strait Tunnel Project


 * 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 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan Strait Tunnel Project

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOTLINK, article holds no actual information. It's been tagged as a stub for an extended period of time and has not been expanded until this AfD was proposed. Article also fails to state notability. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are substatial pages in chinese.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is an English language site, however. Sources need to be in English. Of the 3 links given, one is dead, one is an OK media source, and one is HTML markup code and unreadable. I'm undecided as to whether to support deletion or keeping, but better sources and some expansion is advisable for this to survive the AFD challenge. 23skidoo (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Commentno requirement at all that the sources be in english. See WP:RS. It would help though ifhere were further informationDGG (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Real proposed tunnel, and notable by claiming to link Taiwan to Mainland China. Article already has sources, of which at least one is in English. J I P  | Talk 04:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has sources, but no substance. Refer to WP:NOTLINK. No material. No information. Sources are from 2005; there are no updates and work on this tunnel have yet to even begin. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * New refs added--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 04:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep.  There is a whole  category for proposed tunnel projects, including highly speculative ones such as Japan-Korea and Britain-Ireland.   The linked articles seem sufficient to establish notability.   It would be great if someone expanded this with content from the  engineering article, but stub != delete.  Bm gub (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think that the fact that the tunnel is being planned, designed and is being implimented is in dispute. I don't think that the notability of it should be in dispute.  I can see that it is a short article right now but has GREAT potential for expansion.  This should not have gone to AfD... It just needs to be wiki'd and expanded.  --Pmedema (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought this article to AfD BECAUSE it was left in such a state for over a year. It wasn't wiki'd or expanded for a year until I put on the AfD tag. The article, in the state it was in when I nominated it for AfD failed to establish notability or even provide any encyclopedic information and fell under WP:NOTLINK. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD should not be used for cleanup. I have taken some time and added some content to the article bassed on the references added by User:Ksyrie.  There are other tags to use regarding requests for cleanup like a  tag.


 * Keep As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm at a loss to explain this nomination; AfD is not cleanup. Sources do not have to be in English, the only criteria they must meet is that they are reliable - and the sources are available. It's just an ordinary run-of-the-mill stub. And there are many, many sources in English, see . Regards, EJF (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep this is a frankly bizarre nom. Since when has "tagged as a stub for a long time" been a deletion criteria? This warrants an article just as much as Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge - it's just that HK has more English-speakers able to translate from the Chinese. —  iride  scent  18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2008 (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.