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. The arguments for this article's retention simply do not hold up to snuff. Therefore the article is found to not meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Duisburg[edit]

Kreuz Duisburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Once again, you misrepresent the nature of the "no consensus". In October 2015, several editors pointed out to you and others that at least some of the then block nomination articles clearly met GNG, and that you should not nominate them all in a block, nor nominate any of them separately without doing any research on them. You waited a couple of months, and then, without notifying all (and probably without notifying any) of the editors who had opposed you, made another block nomination (made up partially of PROD nominations, all of which were clearly inappropriate) without doing any research. The fact that the block nomination was made on separate pages does not mean that it was not a block nomination. When it was then pointed out to you that you have followed the wrong procedures and that there is still no consensus, you rely upon some of the outcomes of that procedurally inappropriate block nomination to support your contention that there is an "emerging consensus". I repeat: there is no consensus. Your further contention that mine is a minority view is irrelevant - even if only one editor is able to point out either GNG or procedural inappropriateness, a nomination should fail. I say that it is both highly inappropriate and disruptive for you to nominate simultaneously so many similar articles for deletion when you have already been told not to do so, particularly when you have not done the research you have also been told to do before nominating them. How do you expect other editors to have the time to find the material for GNG when you are nominating them all of them all at once? Bahnfrend (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, who are you again to be telling other editors what to do and what not to do? Sorry. Your argument doesn't really hold water. And might I suggest at this point you WP:DROPTHESTICK, which several other editors have asked you to do. You really need to read more carefully, and then formulate your arguments more fully. First, I was not involved in the initial block AfD (as you call it) at all. Didn't nominate the non-notable interchanges, didn't join the discussion. Stumbled on the non-notable interchanges all by my lonesome. Second, it was not my contention that there was "emerging consensus", that was another editor's viewpoint. When you disregard that, you get called to the woodshed, showing the overwhelming consensus in 6 other AfD discussions on this same topic. So when you get so many of the facts incorrect, its difficult to listen to anything else you have to say. You shouting from the rooftops that you are right does not make you so. Your lack of civility, and personal attacks are simply becoming more frantic and disconcerting. Again, please drop the stick. And, yes, I am still awaiting for your apology. Onel5969 TT me 04:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Cullen328: My further research today has revealed, amongst other things, that the interchange includes a sculpture described in the sources as a symbol of Duisburg. I have expanded the article further to include the further information, which I guess thickens the soup. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 09:53, 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 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced. Fulfills WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again you talk about wp:notability, when deletion of a topic requires that the topic be BOTH non-notable and insignificant.  I've asked you before words to the effect, "Given our policy to fix problems not delete them, why are you trying to get this topic deleted, when if non-notability is your concern, you could be !voting to redirect or merge to one of the two autobahn articles?".  For our encyclopedia, this issue is more important than non-notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting that you mention the blur between that which is the autobahn, and that which is the autobahnkreuz.  This has come up before in our discussion about WP:GEOROAD, which indicates that we want coverage of the autobahn "network".  The long numbered roads and the autobahnkreuzes are all part of the same object.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what's interesting is your continued refusal to address the lack of notability, and your refusal to see the overriding consensus developing in these discussions. The argument you use above has been discounted in several other AfD discussions. In almost 50 discussions which have been closed, only 2 have reached the conclusion to "keep" (one was my own withdrawal of the nomination). Regardless, take care. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could get more into a discussion with you about wp:notability, but you don't seem to me to reflect acceptance of the difference between GNG, WP:GEOROAD, and the 2016 version of WP:N.  To me, your GNG-centric viewpoint became less substantive when I learned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Kassel-Süd that you dismiss the 2014 material at hna.de as "trivial mentions and routine coverage", and I learned at the AfD for Dreieck Walsrode that you've disregarded a non-prose GNG source (a map) as "totally trivial".  I think that any pretense that a topic with daily traffic of 160,000 is unknown to the world at large over a period of time, is argumentative. 

    To respond to the argumentum ad populum, your GNG-focus is possibly a mask for the question of if there is sufficient GNG material to write an article, which has not been a requirement since 2007 in WP:N.  The fine points that decide whether a WP:V WP:RS government source is independent for GNG is not an issue when finding material for writing an article that is mostly technical wikiGnome work, not opinion.  Similarly, maps have not been disputed as WP:V WP:RS for writing articles.

    If you want more WP:V WP:RS sources to write an article, what have you done to locate them?  These kreuz and dreieck topics typically have four or five common search names, "Kreuz Duisburg", "Autobahnkreuz Duisburg", "AK Duisburg", "Duisburg Kreuz", and possibly "Duisburg Interchange".  If you've been checking all of these search terms, it might be helpful to the other editors to add the "Find sources" templates for each. 

    But I'm also willing to meet you on your terms and discuss the case as if this topic is non-notable, because I'm focused on building an encyclopedia and retaining our content contributors, and I don't have a strong opinion about whether this topic should be standalone or covered in one of the two autobahn articles.  The elephant in the room is that non-notability is not what matters most here for the encyclopedia.  As far as I know, no case has ever been attempted to show that this topic is both non-notable and insignificant.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Final comment - Your recalcitrance and refusal to recognize the, what by now is, overwhelming consensus regarding this issue, makes further discourse unproductive. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 17 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.
More