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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newark Airport Interchange[edit]

Newark Airport Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article title is a neologism, a google search for "Newark Airport Interchange" yields 14 unique results, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Most of the article is original research; any material that would be salvageable for merge is already in the articles on the respective highways. And for the icing on the cake, not that it matters, but the original author and only major contributor is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet/vandal. NORTH ^talk 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This page was created by our 512theking vandal.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2!} 13:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that's the most valid reasoning. I threw it in on the nomination just as the icing on the cake, but just because he's banned now doesn't mean some of his prior contributions couldn't have been useful. If you're going to agree with me, agree with me on the first two points. -- NORTH ^talk 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is likely as noteworthy as any other article about a big complicated road and motorway junction used by many thousand vehicles each day. The name "Newark Airport Interchange" is an obvious name to call it, hardly a "neologism". Anthony Appleyard 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The term has been used for Turnpike exit 14, but not for the whole complex: [1] The interchange itself is notable: "Described by the Department as being 'one of the largest and one of the most complex projects ever entered into' by it, the project centered on the confluence of U.S. Routes 1 and 9, the New Jersey Turnpike, Newark Airport and the access roads to Port Newark." How about a descriptive name like interchange at Newark Airport? This exact wording is used in a 1964 planning document. We could also simply move it to Newark Airport interchange, another descriptive name. --NE2 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:NEO does not apply; this is about a real thing, and it is about the thing, not about the term (that is, it doesn't say "David Letterman uses Newark Airport interchange as a euphemism for sex" and so forth). The term should be by consensus of the article editors per WP:NC. An alternate name, per The New Jersey Turnpike, is some variation of "Interchange 14", but that book uses this title as well. (but I believe that only applies to Turnpike drivers) --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you said. I never said that the article was about a neologism. There are two separate problems with the article as it is currently written: (1) The article title is a neologism - which isn't cause for deletion, but something that needs to be changed if its kept, and (2) most of it seems to be original research.

As an aside, this article is not about Interchange 14 on the New Jersey Turnpike. It's about the interchange just west of there between I-78, US 1/9, etc. -- NORTH ^talk 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps the confusion on whether or not Turnpike Exit 14 is included indicates that WP:NEO does apply. To quote the article itself, "Interstate 95/ Turnpike may not be involved." (emphasis added) By the same logic that would include the Turnpike - that the ramps all feed into each other, and there's no clear boundary between the two interchanges - we should include where the Airport entrance actually interchanges with US 1/9 south of I-78, but then those ramps weave in and out of the ramps to Route 81 south of the airport, and Route 81 is just a whole big mess of ramps that are indistinguishable from each other all the way to Turnpike Exit 13A. But 13A is by definition a totally separate interchage from 14...

Basically what I'm saying is maybe this article is about a neologism that's poorly defined. It's true that the "complex" shares many things in common with notable interchanges, like the East Los Angeles Interchange, but IMHO it's missing the two most important things: a name, and defined boundaries. The first link NE2 cites calls it a "complex project", but doesn't necessarily mean that it's meant to be viewed as a single interchange complex. -- NORTH ^talk 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NJDOT does call it a "confluence" in that court case, and includes the Turnpike. Someone with New York Times access could check [2]. And I suspect, but can't be sure, that there is a common name for this - "the airport", as in "I-78 is backed up to the airport". --NE2 11:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that "the airport" would refer to the airport, not any specific roadway junction near the airport. The word "confluence" to me indicates merely that a bunch of roads are flowing into each other, but doesn't necessarily indicate that they're flowing together in a single complex, and does nothing to define boundaries.

Surely if this interchange had a valid name and defined boundaries, there would be a better source than a decades-old court case that doesn't even mention I-78 (although likely only because it wasn't completed at the time). -- NORTH ^talk 22:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, rife with OR and POV and unsourced statements, and there's no reason asserted why this single interchange is notable. Krimpet 15:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A reason is giving for this interchanges notability in the lead. "The interchange is one of the largest and most complex interchanges in New Jersey." --Holderca1 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article contains useful information about one of the most complexed interchanges in the Northeastern United States. I know my brother 512theking the vandal, created it. But this article offers information about the interchange. Besides, they're other interchange articles that exist. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You better god dam keep it! I 512theking, created this article. listen to my little brother JohnnyAlbert10, I like this article and if you guys delete it i will vandalize wikipedia like i did in the good old days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.147.5.154 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep The article explicitly claims notability and is certainly one of the most complex in New Jersey. Alansohn 02:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In the nomination, I said nothing about the interchange not being notable, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale. -- NORTH ^talk 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are retained based on satisfying criteria of notability. The fact that this is not mentioned in your nomination might well have been indicative of an apparent failure to understand that fact, which is why I stated so in my explanation. Your response makes it clear that you have indeed ignored issues of notability. The rationalization for deletion is simply not valid, and no reference to the existence (or non-existence) of other crap was made. Creating running arguments with each person differing in opinion is not going to help your case, not that it matters. If you have an issue with the title, propose an alternative name for the article and let's discuss it. Until then, let this AfD run its course. Alansohn 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patently false, there are many other reasons to delete an article, namely the two I did mention in my nomination: original research and neologisms. My reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was in response to JohnnyAlbert10 saying, "Besides, they're other interchange articles that exist."

If someone can tell me verifiably using a reliable source what ramps are and aren't part of the Newark Airport Interchange, then I'll have no problem keeping it after we prune out some of the OR. Until then, the information can be more than adequately covered in the articles on the individual routes. -- NORTH ^talk 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your tenacity, but I remain utterly unconvinced. Covering this information separately in articles for Interstate 78 in New Jersey, U.S. Route 1/9, New Jersey Route 21, New Jersey Route 22, Interstate 95 in New Jersey and the New Jersey Turnpike creates massive confusion and multiple maintenance of information that logically belongs in one place. If your issue is still the title of the article, I encourage you to proffer some alternatives, which I would be more than happy to consider. Alansohn 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what information? According to the only semi-reliable source that's been offered, Exit 14 on the Turnpike is part of the interchange, if not the interchange itself, which makes everything in the current version of the article factually incorrect. -- NORTH ^talk 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment - Notability is not the only criteria for deletion or keep. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_be_needed. --Holderca1 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that none of the other criteria are being raised or are irrelevant. WP:NEO, used as the primary justification for deletion, addresses "words and terms that have recently been coined", which is simply not relevant here. The term has been used on multiple occasions, as nominator acknowledges. The term has been used in multiple newspaper articles (see here), with sources going back some 50 years. It has also been used in several captions in a book on the New Jersey Turnpike (see here). Again, if there is an issue with the title, let's hear some ideas and rename it if we can reach consensus. If there are problems with the article, let's work on fixing them. Other than that, the nomination does not fly, and I stand behind my vote. Alansohn 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Original research has been raised and is relevant. --Holderca1 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • All that's been done is that a claim of WP:OR has been raised. I'm hard pressed to see anything in this article other than verifiable facts. Let's see what the issues are, rather than just make a claim without any support whatsoever. Alansohn 15:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article doesn't cite its sources. The article has been up for deletion since Monday and no one has put in the sources as now. If you have something to verify these verifiable facts, please put it in the article. I think we would all be hard pressed to take your word for it. Which come to think of it, is exactly what original research is. --Holderca1 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your blatant personal attack and failure to assume good faith are utterly uncalled for, and will not be tolerated. The straight-line diagrams used as sources have been added. All of the information can be reviewed and verified to your collective satisfaction. Alansohn 19:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Huh? What personal attack and on who? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please quote what you believe to be a personal attack. Whose good faith have I failed to assume? I am assuming you are referring to 512theking since he wrote the article? Well, he still has a responsibility to cite his sources, WP:OR is policy and trumps WP:AGF which is a guideline. As far as making a claim of violating WP:OR and not supporting it. I don't have to support it. It has to be proven that it isn't original research, from WP:OR: "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." --Holderca1 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The SLDs verify only that the routes mentioned all flow to a single point. They don't verify that those routes form the "Newark Airport Interchange", which according to NE2's sources, they don't, since the NAI is Exit 14 on the Turnpike – and according to the article, the Turnpike isn't part of the NAI. They also don't verify that the main use is to access the Airport (which seems like common sense, but if Exit 14 is part of it, maybe the main use is to access the Holland Tunnel instead?) and to access the ports (which definitely isn't common sense). The sentence about the many lanes, twists, curves, etc., being a "problem for motorists" besides being unencyclopedic, is original research.

                As I said before, the only source we have so far about the interchange (not SLDs of the individual routes) contradicts the article regarding the inclusion of the turnpike. The only thing left after removing the original research is a single sentence about each highway that belongs in the individual highway article – and in most cases that sentence is already there. -- NORTH ^talk 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

                • You can repeat it as many times as you want: The sources support the existence of a "Newark Airport Interchange" going back fifty years, which you insist violates WP:NEO. The content is based on material available in public sources that supports all of the statements made in the article. Despite the fact that all the necessary sources have been added to the article, not one of the skeptics has stated which material constitutes original research. Repetition does not make it so. Whatever arguments have been made have been rather poor and don't stand up. You have not made your case to me, or to anyone else, and I stand by my original vote. Give it up already. Can the harassment finally stop? Alansohn 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (indent reset) Those sources support the existance of an interchange, not one of them calls it the Newark Airport Interchange. I consider the nearly the entire article original research. North tagged the article where citations are needed. --Holderca1 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let me get this straight: We hear a complaint above that "The article has been up for deletion since Monday and no one has put in the sources as now." Now, a full business week after creating the AfD, we're finally seeing the claims of original research? Please attack someone else. You have not made your case. Alansohn 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read at the very top, it was in the original nomination on Feb. 26th. --Holderca1 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So was the WP:NEO, which is clearly false, as well. Making the claim does not make it so. Alansohn 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources from 50 years ago supporting the existence of an NAI are talking about Turnpike Exit 14, a completely different interchange. Thus using it to describe I-78 Exits 57-58 is a neologism.

        You claim that "not one of the skeptics has stated which material constitutes original research." Interestingly, that's immediately underneath where I specify which statements are OR, and right after I tagged those statements in the article. Now that you've removed those statements, maybe you can see that all that's left is a single sentence about each individual highway. And since the term is a neologism, those sentences are best placed in the articles on the individual highways.

        And by the way, changing the words "Newark Ports" to "Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal" does not make that statement not OR.

        Also by the way, absolutely no one has attacked you. Please keep cool. -- NORTH ^talk 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • So now we have acknowledgment that we have a fifty-year old source, but the article is not what it's really about. So much for WP:NEO. As I stated "Now, a full business week after creating the AfD, we're finally seeing the claims of original research?" You waited, day after day after day, and after repeated requests you finally marked the article with your claims of WP:OR, all of which have been addressed. The statement that you insisted was [{WP:OR]] "The main usages of the interchange is to provide access to Newark Liberty International Airport and the Newark Ports" was changed to "The interchange provide access to Newark Liberty International Airport and the Port Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal." I'm not sure what it is about the amended version that "does not make that statement not OR". I'm not sure what the source is of this tag team effort, but I have been convinced to change my vote from Keep to Strong Keep. You have made tour case; I have made mine. Over and out. Alansohn 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Repeating something I said above, "If someone can tell me verifiably using a reliable source what ramps are and aren't part of the Newark Airport Interchange, then I'll have no problem keeping it after we prune out some of the OR. Until then, the information can be more than adequately covered in the articles on the individual routes." That hasn't happened yet. I agree to disagree, the closing admin can decide whether WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR have been met. -- NORTH ^talk 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record, I have voted neither to keep or delete this article, I just simply made a comment. This article still fails WP:CITE. --Holderca1 23:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all sources cited are primary, therefore fails WP:ATT (which is policy), stating that primary sources are only acceptable if they are not the main or sole basis of the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any possible attribution issues have been addressed. Alansohn 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable and falls under the purview of WP:NJSCR and WP:NJ. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: As I've said before, notability isn't really the issue here. Also, falling under the purview of a wikiproject isn't a good keep rationale, especially since I (the nominator) started one of those projects. -- NORTH ^talk 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, here's a suggestion, instead of deleting it why not just find out the real name of the interchange because my brother (512theking) made the name up. Then, cleanup the article and you have a nice informational interchange article becuase if you guys delete it, it would be a big waste. Think about it. -- JohnnyAlbert10 ^{Time to talk · My Help} 00:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A neologism created by a persistent vandal and sockpuppeter. No reliable sources and pretty much original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:NEO argument has been long demolished; the sources go back over 50 years using the term, including a dozen or two uses in The New York Times, three of which are included in the article as references. The article needs to be addressed based on its content, not its long lost creator who hasn't touched the article in over two months, and the article has been extensively expanded since his departure from the scene. The original research issues have been addressed as raised, and the last artifact of tagged WP:OR has been removed. Four reliable references, five sources, no outstanding issues; are you sure we're talking about the same article? Alansohn 06:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the partial rewrite, portions of the article (particularly #Routes involved) still refer explictly to I-78 Exit 57-58 excluding the Turnpike, which makes the WP:NEO claim still valid, since all those sources are using the term to describe explicitly NJTP Exit 14. I've tagged an additional two sentences as WP:OR. (Does it provide access to the Marine Terminal? I thought it was 13A that's signed Port Elizabeth. And is the Turnpike a mile east of the interchange or not?) -- NORTH ^talk 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As fast as you have tagged WP:OR issues, they have been rewritten or removed. As we've discussed on our talk pages, the article as written left much to be desired. But I think that we're well past the WP:NEO argument. It's clear that the term exists and has been used -- and documented -- for several decades. When the Newark Airport Interchange was created, there was no I-78, and there was direct access from the Turnpike to 1&9. Now that I-78 exists, what happened to the interchange that it no longer exists? Alansohn 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Edit conflict -- But is this a term that NJDOT uses? (The PDFs won't open here due to corrupt program but I can view the straight line diagrams later to see if that is the case.) For instance, with the Kennedy Interchange in Kentucky, there have been references by KYTC towards its naming -- however, I can't find a NJDOT doc that uses it yet. I guess my weak case for OR stems from this -- "The interchange is one of the largest and most complex interchanges in New Jersey." -- however, that isn't really much OR as just an uncited or unverifiable statement, so I'll retract my OR comment above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why would the NJDOT be the arbiter of the term's validity? The fact that there are multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support its use -- and I could pile on a dozen more -- backs up the use of the term in the title. Alansohn 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sources that support its use for NJTP Exit 14, which originally this article was specifically not about, and the article now is still talking about a complex much larger than just that interchange. -- NORTH ^talk 07:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that the exclusion of the Turnpike from the interchange as described in the original text of the article was a major mistake. This mistake has been long corrected. As constructed, the Newark Airport Interchange connected the Turnpike to US 1&9 and on to the airport, with NJ 21 and US 22 intersecting as well. Nothing has changed since 1952, other than adding I-78 into the mix as the connector between the Turnpike and US 1&9. The sources more than adequately document that the term exists; WP:NEO is irrelevant. Are you now arguing that 1) the Newark Airport Interchange never existed, 2) it existed once, but doesn't exist now that I-78 was constructed, or 3) it exists, but it only refers to Exit 14 of the Turnpike. Alansohn 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I've made explicitly clear several times, most recently with my bold type above, #3. This is also what NE2 said the day this AfD opened. -- NORTH ^talk 07:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it only refers to Exit 14 of the Turnpike, how does it interchange with Newark Airport? The sources included describe improvements to the interchange negotiated between the Port Authority (operator of Newark Airport) and the Turnpike Authority. Alansohn 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Where are the sources from NJDOT that explicitly state that the interchange along Interstate 78 is the 'Newark Airport Interchange'? Or that it is the 'largest' interchange or one of the most 'complex'? It's not a NJTPK interchange, its one thats maintained by NJDOT... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wikipedia requires sources. Reliable and verifiable sources regarding the interchange are provided. What does what the NJDOT calls or does not call it have to do with the notability of the article? Statements regarding relative size and complexity of the interchange had been removed well before your reply was written. Please remember that the article is not static. Alansohn 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge/redirect to Newark Liberty International Airport as a last resort. Doesn't really matter. —freak(talk) 01:25, Mar. 7, 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Abeg92contribs 19:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For God sake... please read (or at least skim) the rest of the discussion before you !vote in and AfD. As I've said before, notability isn't really the issue here. -- NORTH ^talk 21:34, 8 March 2007 (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.