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 no consensus on whether to redirect this, or to move it ito a proposed article about its successor. Suggest those discussions continue on the Talk page as I don't see a 4th relist establishing any clear path. StarMississippi 01:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not hellbent on keep this as a standalone article but we out to keep some record of proposed/unrealized submarine communications cables somewhere. Could be nice to divide
List of international submarine communications cables into groups like "active", discontinued", and "unrealized".
Crunchydillpickle🥒 (
talk) 07:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I would be good with that and making this a redirect to the list. -
UtherSRG(talk) 12:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Can you speak to which notability policy would allow this article to continue as it is?
notability is a requirement to be an article. -
UtherSRG(talk) 16:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Daniel (
talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I see a suggestion to divide an article, is this the target article you are suggesting? It's not clear what the consensus is here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Suggestion: There is coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and I suspect that notability could be proven if someone developed and referenced the article. However, nobody has been interested enough to develop it much. There is not even an article for its successor project, the Hawaiki Cable, which is much more notable as it is an operational cable, and there is arguably
demand for an article. I suggest we rename this "
Hawaiki Cable", do basic reformatting, keeping the info about the SPIN predecessor, then wait and see whether anyone develops it. An article on an operational cable is much more likely to attract editor attention than a defunct cable proposal from the 2000s.
Nurg (
talk) 01:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)reply
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.