Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg

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. The "delete" side argues this junction is nondescript but the "keep" side say it's special; the "delete" side says this doesn't pass WP:GNG but didn't convincingly address the conventions on coverage of highways that were invoked by he "keep" side. Der yck C. 21:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Oranienburg[edit]

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny that such interchanges somehow managed to get published on Wikipedia. Maybe I can get by with writing an article on the road in front of my house. Delete. MgWd (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)MgWd[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. 68.231.77.22 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) - I apparently was logged out while editing. This comment is mine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It has nothing to do with WP:BIAS and everything to do with the fact that as every interchange on the Autobahn is named, being a named interchange on the Autobahn does not indicate a special status and thus notability, whereas in (for example) England, they do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobahn interchanges are all named; there is no significant inference of notability from the mere fact that it is a named interchange. There is no apparent evidence that this meets WP:GNG. These should probably be part of a list - there would be no objection to redirects to the individual Autobahns' pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that User:Meltingwood hits the nail on the head when he/she says, "Maybe I can get by with writing an article on the road in front of my house." The WMF says yes! yes! and leaves en.wikipedia to clean up the resulting mess that arrives from around the world. Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator states that this intersection is just like thousands of others, yet given the map in the article and some WP:UCS, I think that this is not something that a reasonable person would say. A quick look at some references, and I've found that www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/designGuide/CH_7.pdf page 7-14 states, "Interchanges with loops in all four quadrants are referred to as full cloverleafs and all others are referred to as partial cloverleafs." So the interchange under consideration is a form of a partial cloverleaf, and I for one cannot say that I've ever before seen one like it. I also looked at the talk page and see that the nominator has not tried to engage in a discussion about the alternatives to deletion before binding the time of AfD volunteers with an AfD nomination. I'll incorporate by reference all of the comments I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: partial cloverleaf interchanges are incredibly common. In my experience, they're more common than the full cloverleaf now. Various agencies have found that by removing some of the ramps from a full cloverleaf that the interchange works better for the traffic on the freeway by eliminating the weave–merge conflicts between traffic exiting and entering at the interchange. Imzadi 1979 → 13:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if the nominator is going to say that this interchange is "just like thousands of others", and you are going to use the words "incredibly common", it might help to start with showing one. I don't have the research resources to begin this search. Do you? We have an article on Partial cloverleaf interchange, but the examples tend to be balanced, certainly not like this one. Also, the article says that there were also gradient issues in the design. Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just another unremarkable interchange. If they were British, they should be deleted as well. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to make a deletion argument? Is "unremarkable" a WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument? If so, what metric can editors use to know whether their new article will be considered proper under Wikipedia policy? I'd hope that any response you make would explain why this topic and its content are so bad that they must be deleted rather than merged. Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as per WP:DEL8 - lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to have it in Wikijargon: there's no claim to notability and nothing in the article suggesting same. Interchanges are not inherently notable. Mangoe (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a rationale for keeping this particular interchange would be nice. Your comments on the highway page are nice, but generic, and do not speak to the concept of the notability of individual interchanges. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, tried to keep it short. You can find my full arguments within the discussion about Kreuz Stuttgart --Chandler321 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No worries. It's just that your comments on the that talk page don't specifically address the issue with this particular article, which is that it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'per DGG. Just see all London subway-stations that are covered.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As has been pointed out in other AfD discussions, there is a large difference between subway stations and interchanges. Also, this still does not address the lack of notability of this particular interchange. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that is true. Most interchanges usually are larger constructions than subway stations. However, my guess is that is not what you mean. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 20:15, 9 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.