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. Noting that the article was completely unreferenced even at the end of the AfD, making deletion mandatory per WP:V. Sandstein 09:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest[edit]

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

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 18:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was the well-referenced site of the famous.... Oops, no. Not referenced. At all. Or notable. At all. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Comment 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 ) 04:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, DGG? I would not support keeping an article about an English, American or Japanese cloverleaf unless it was notable. Take a look at the vastly better quality of sourcing at MacArthur Maze, for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We;'ve always been extremely flexible on geographical features, certainly for natural features, but also for manmade components of important infrastructure. In practice, I don't think we really ever applied the GNG in this area.

Several editors are stepping forward to say that we do not need or want articles about every single cloverleaf or similar generic highway interchange in the world, DGG. These are routine parts of highway infrastructure that can be described briefly in the corresponding highway articles, as opposed to devoting freestanding articles to them. The average cloverleaf is far less notable than the surrounding elementary schools, middle schools, strip malls and small tech businesses where people actually spend their "quality" time, and we routinely delete those articles continuously. I never, ever thought that Wikipedia would incorporate a directory of individual articles about all the world's cloverleafs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would never have thought so either, but since we deem to do it in the US, we should do it everywhere. There are many fields where I consider WP coverage way to expansive, and the interpretation of WP:GNG much to lax. I'm dismayed by our coverage of athletes in minor sports, or in major sports from countries where they are minor. I'm dismay ed at our coverage of insignificant musical or film performers I'm horrified by our coverage of internet start-ups. [etc. etc.]. .I personally have not the wlightest interest in these articles, but I do have interest in articles in other fields where some people think them unimportant_ Everyone will have their own list here, and it will not be the each for each of us. The only appropriate way of handling this is live and let live.

But DGG, your underlying assumption about "deeming to do it" is false. I live in California, by far the most populous state in the US, and drive extensively around the northern part of the state all the time. We have thousands of cloverleaf and similar interchanges in our freeway system but only 12 articles in the category "Road interchanges in California", and one of those is at AfD right now. There is no widespread push to create articles about run-of-the-mill highway interchanges in the US. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, the reason "we deem to do it in the US", and the reason "we would keep them if they were British", is because, with the exception of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, interchanges in the US are not normally named. Therefore, when one is named, it's a good sign that it's likely to be notable - and that is generally borne out. These, however, are interchanges in Germany, where each and every interchange is named, and therefore the presence of a name does not mean it is necessarily notable. Contrary to popular belief not everything that varies from nation to nation is WP:BIAS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cloverleaf interchanges are not automatically notable, not in the US or in UK, nor outside. Except a few passing mentions, I can't find nothing substantial about this one. Cavarrone 10:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I recognize the consensus appears other than I thought it was . DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The posts in support of this nomination are almost unbelievable. You only have to look at the map in the article to see that THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT A CLOVERLEAF INTERSECTION!!!! Which is yet further proof that the proponents of deletion of this and other Autobahn interchange articles are simply disruptively editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, your civility is a beacon in a wilderness of negativity. Btw, you might want to take your own advice and look at the article, whose first line is "The Kreuz Dortmund-Nordwest (German: Autobankreuz Dortmund-Nordwest) is a Cloverleaf interchange in the German state North Rhine-Westfalia." (emphasis added to help those who seem to have trouble). So either the map is incorrect, or the lead sentence is. Typical quality of these types of non-notable articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It's an obvious translation error by an editor who is clearly not very skilled at translation, in an article that is tagged as a "rough translation". The original German Wikipedia article includes a correct description of the intersection. Any lingering doubt that might exist is easily cured by the simple expedient of looking at Google Maps. As the tag at the top of the article says, the appropriate response is to "enhance the translation". Bahnfrend (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's true that this is not a cloverleaf, it's a trumpet interchange. Which is, however, also nothing special. And it's still a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL interchange on an Autobahn, that being named does not infer any notability because all Autobahn interchanges are named. In the absence of evidence that it passes WP:GNG this can only be a delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 31 December 2015 (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.