Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Werder

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Werder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it is one of the older interchanges in Germany, that in and of itself is not enough to show it meets WP:GNG. It's history and other names sections are both unsourced, and the fact that it was "an important link" was not verified in any of the very few sources about this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—does not meet the bar set by WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Of the two sources in place, one is self-published, thus failing the RS prong of the GNG test, and the other is just statistics, failing the "significant coverage" prong. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A2 with template R with possibilities and option to merge Redirect to A10 would also work. This is the first of these dreiecks I've seen covered in the Polish Wikipedia. This is an historic dreieck, built in 1936. Editors puzzled about the A2 being "an important link" may not have heard of why the Western Allies wanted the Berlin Airlift. See also, Helmstedt–Marienborn border crossing. WP:Notability can be established in multiple ways, including WP:GEOROAD, but is secondary to our policy WP:PRESERVE and keeping our content contributors. Unscintillating (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GEOROAD does not cover interchange/intersection articles directly, but as these aren't articles on whole state- or national-government-maintained highways, the following would apply: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject". The latter part is a paraphrase of WP:GNG. Finally, WP:PRESERVE applies to content within an article, not to article subject which fail to meet the notability threshold. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The German name for the topic at hand is "Autobahndreieck Werder", which by inspection includes the word Autobahn. WP:GEOROAD specially identifies that it is the Autobahn "network" that we want to cover. Arbitrarily excluding named objects within the network, including refusing that readers can type "Dreieck Werder" in the search bar, is IMO destructive to the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRESERVE point 9 states, "Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge". At the top of the page, which is WP:Editing policy, the nutshell states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)." If you or any other editor believes that this topic is non-notable, the fix under Wikipedia policy is to preserve the value that others have added to the encyclopedia by merging the text to a suitable target article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - not when the only content in the article is only either routine (it's situated here, it's existence since X, it connects a & b) or trivial (it used to be named Y). As it stands, the article contains nothing to show the interchange is notable, in fact, there's no assertion of notability in the article at all. If this interchange was a person, company or event, it could have been A7'd. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Knowing that a topic has changed its name is especially important information so that researchers know how to cross index information. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You say "The article contains nothing to show the interchange is notable", but our WP:N guideline says, "WP:N#Article content does not determine notability. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I looked up WP:NOTEVERYTHING:
        Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.<ref>See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404</ref>
      I've put in bold a key part of the sentence. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says that we only need the summary of the topic in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The essay WP:RUNOFTHEMILL shows that the 200 dreiecks and kreuzes in Germany are the very opposite of "run-of-the-mill" cul-de-sacs and coverage of the streets of every square mile of a city. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - One point, and an important point, that I agree about is that the fix for non-notability is not a license to Merge 100%. Unscintillating (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that "autobahn" appears in the full version of the German name does not import notability. The titles are descriptive. Autobahnkreuz translates to "autobahn cross", and it means that two autobahns cross each other. Autobahndreieck means "autobahn triangle" and just means that the two autobahns form a triangle- or T-shaped interchange, usually meaning that one autobahn ends at another in a three-way interchange. This is no more notable than calling something an "Interstate interchange" and attempting to transfer the notability of the Interstate Highway System to that structure.
        These are run-of-the-mill items though in road networks. You say that 200 of them isn't common, yet we're talking about a 12,949-kilometre (8,046 mi) network that serves a country that would rank 5th in total area if it were a US state. That's a lot of interchanges in a relatively small network jammed into a relatively small area. We can cover the autobahn network without dedicated articles on every interchange, especially when those articles fail to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 10:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "We can cover the autobahn network without dedicated articles on every interchange, especially when those articles fail to meet WP:GNG." I agree that autobahndreiecks and autobahnkreuzes can be covered without covering them in standalone articles. If you mean that, then please change your !vote so that the work of the content contributors for Dreieck Werder is available to merge to other articles, and the topic Dreieck Werder will be retained in the encyclopedia as a redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete another road interchange that fails WP:GNG. interchanges do not have inherent notability and this one does not demonstrate sufficient third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being old is not the criterion for being notable; GNG is. --Rs chen 7754 20:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not an issue here, since GNG is one part of WP:N, since notability is a test to determine if an article should be standalone, and no one here is arguing to keep the article as standalone. WP:GEOROAD documents that we cover the Autobahn network. By inspection, the autobahn network includes autobahndreiecks. Our policies provide that the fix for non-notability is merger (based on the topic itself, before consideration of content issues). The other side of the same issue is that it is contrary to the basic purpose of building an encyclopedia to delete the workmanship that has gone into this article. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Find sources templates:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Signs are part of the Autobahn network too. Should we start writing articles on those? --Rs chen 7754 21:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Autobahn signage falls into the category of the Autobahn network in the meaning at WP:GEOROAD. Autobahndreiecks are objects larger than a square kilometer that are no more or less a part of the Autobahn network than are the long numbered roads.
There may be things to be said about Autobahn signage, but since the topic is not obviously notable, the basic policy question becomes, is the topic insignificant? Variable-message sign (VMS) has a picture of a German VMS that is unlike any such sign I have ever seen, and on one of these Kreuz/Dreieck articles I saw a picture of an LED sign with more information than is possible on the VMS being used in the US. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question was rhetorical. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you make it? Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2016 (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.