- 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. An ATD was proposed here, and I was torn about whether to use it or not, but ultimately no other support for doing so existed so I elected to go straight delete. If anyone really, really wants to merge this into another article, let me know on my talk page and I will undelete the history (so you can merge) and redirect it to the target article - but noting that if the content is subsequently removed from the target article, the redirect can then be re-deleted. Hope this makes sense. Daniel ( talk) 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Ben Gurion Canal Project
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ben Gurion Canal Project ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG as a conspiracy theory propagated by a random blogger, then bandied around the internet uncritically on likeminded conspiracy sites. No WP:SIGCOV in RS that even establish that this is a real thing. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Politics, Engineering, and Israel. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: A research paper from the 60s does not confer notability, on this "thing" that was never built. Sourcing is scant to begin with, all I can find are discussions on websites that seem to want to support one side of the current conflict by pushing a narrative; they are not RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: The hypothetical conspiracy theory about the future paragraph from the article should be deleted, not the whole page. All the other
proposed canal projects would have to be deleted as well with this rational. With the
tensions rising in the Red Sea and the Egyptian President
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi winning an election with
90% of the vote, things are pretty hot there for this to be ignored. I will go ahead and delete the conspiracy theory from the page.
Wikideas1 (
talk)
04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- But is this actually a proposed canal? Not sure I understand what Sisi winning re-election in a landslide has anything to do with this article meeting what’s articulated in WP policy. Longhornsg ( talk) 13:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge (selectively) into List of interoceanic canals that has such propsals in its one table (should be two, one for actual, one for plans). The non-conpiracy part of this article belongs there. Negev Canal is the name under which this American plan is now known and should be the name in the table. There are additional sources for this awkward plan. gidonb ( talk) 00:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. One paper from the 60s. Come on. Zanahary ( talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The necessary RS are nonexistent. ~ HAL 333 17:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, but.... It appears that Israel has no such project and therefore there is no proper name "Ben Gurion Canal Project", and the article title should be deleted for that reason. However, ideas for a canal through the Negev to the Gulf of Aqaba have been tossed around since at least the 1880s. Prior to the founding of Israel in 1948 it was called the "Palestine Canal", which is currently the name used at List of interoceanic canals, but perhaps a term like " Negev canal" (probably better than "Negev Canal", as I doubt that is a proper name) would be preferred now. The 1963 Maccabee idea is already mentioned at Project Plowshare and Peaceful nuclear explosion. I have no objection to merging any good content into other articles. In principle, there could be scope for a stand-alone article about the various ideas (actual, i.e. non-conspiracy theory) for a Negev canal. On the other hand, WP does have articles about notable conspiracy theories, so I don't accept that this article should be deleted just because it's a conspiracy theory, although it is arguable that it is not a notable conspiracy theory, as few sources call it such. Nurg ( talk) 23:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt the earth.
Andre
🚐
06:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I came to Wikipedia to find information on the ben gurion canal. If you edit the title, future readers will be directed toward other web sources. Maybe you should delete the article. Readers would be directed to sites that offer more information than just a conspiracy theory. 192.140.252.60 ( talk) 09:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Poorly sourced based on a dodgy conspiracy. - UtoD 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure politically motivated conspiracy theory, does not belong on wikipedia. Lansey ( talk) 05:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Pure conspiracy, No reliable sources, Badly written — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanLRK ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 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.
- 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. An ATD was proposed here, and I was torn about whether to use it or not, but ultimately no other support for doing so existed so I elected to go straight delete. If anyone really, really wants to merge this into another article, let me know on my talk page and I will undelete the history (so you can merge) and redirect it to the target article - but noting that if the content is subsequently removed from the target article, the redirect can then be re-deleted. Hope this makes sense. Daniel ( talk) 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Ben Gurion Canal Project
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ben Gurion Canal Project ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG as a conspiracy theory propagated by a random blogger, then bandied around the internet uncritically on likeminded conspiracy sites. No WP:SIGCOV in RS that even establish that this is a real thing. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Politics, Engineering, and Israel. Longhornsg ( talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: A research paper from the 60s does not confer notability, on this "thing" that was never built. Sourcing is scant to begin with, all I can find are discussions on websites that seem to want to support one side of the current conflict by pushing a narrative; they are not RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: The hypothetical conspiracy theory about the future paragraph from the article should be deleted, not the whole page. All the other
proposed canal projects would have to be deleted as well with this rational. With the
tensions rising in the Red Sea and the Egyptian President
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi winning an election with
90% of the vote, things are pretty hot there for this to be ignored. I will go ahead and delete the conspiracy theory from the page.
Wikideas1 (
talk)
04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- But is this actually a proposed canal? Not sure I understand what Sisi winning re-election in a landslide has anything to do with this article meeting what’s articulated in WP policy. Longhornsg ( talk) 13:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Merge (selectively) into List of interoceanic canals that has such propsals in its one table (should be two, one for actual, one for plans). The non-conpiracy part of this article belongs there. Negev Canal is the name under which this American plan is now known and should be the name in the table. There are additional sources for this awkward plan. gidonb ( talk) 00:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. One paper from the 60s. Come on. Zanahary ( talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The necessary RS are nonexistent. ~ HAL 333 17:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, but.... It appears that Israel has no such project and therefore there is no proper name "Ben Gurion Canal Project", and the article title should be deleted for that reason. However, ideas for a canal through the Negev to the Gulf of Aqaba have been tossed around since at least the 1880s. Prior to the founding of Israel in 1948 it was called the "Palestine Canal", which is currently the name used at List of interoceanic canals, but perhaps a term like " Negev canal" (probably better than "Negev Canal", as I doubt that is a proper name) would be preferred now. The 1963 Maccabee idea is already mentioned at Project Plowshare and Peaceful nuclear explosion. I have no objection to merging any good content into other articles. In principle, there could be scope for a stand-alone article about the various ideas (actual, i.e. non-conspiracy theory) for a Negev canal. On the other hand, WP does have articles about notable conspiracy theories, so I don't accept that this article should be deleted just because it's a conspiracy theory, although it is arguable that it is not a notable conspiracy theory, as few sources call it such. Nurg ( talk) 23:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and salt the earth.
Andre
🚐
06:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- I came to Wikipedia to find information on the ben gurion canal. If you edit the title, future readers will be directed toward other web sources. Maybe you should delete the article. Readers would be directed to sites that offer more information than just a conspiracy theory. 192.140.252.60 ( talk) 09:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Poorly sourced based on a dodgy conspiracy. - UtoD 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure politically motivated conspiracy theory, does not belong on wikipedia. Lansey ( talk) 05:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Pure conspiracy, No reliable sources, Badly written — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanLRK ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 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.