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 keep. No clear consensus to merge, but that may continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Circle (traffic circle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A critical part of our extensive encyclopedic treatment of NJ traffic circles? How 'bout WP:N-failing, defunct, incidental road feature? Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Alternatively, editors may wish to consider the merits of merge & redirect to List of traffic circles in New Jersey.[reply]

• Merging to the list article is probably the best way to go. We could probably just put most of the text of the article in the notes column. --Polaron | Talk 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Route 73. This may be a better target as the history of the circle and this route are closely related. --Polaron | Talk 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - a traffic circle that has been removed. Merge away... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge Notability is permanent, and this is a notable road feature. Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires a legitimate effort to edit and improve articles, and if notability is still not satisfied to consider a merge. As List of traffic circles in New Jersey would seem to be the appropriate target for a merge there is no valid reason that it should not have been proposed as a merge target and the far more disruptive rush to AfD avoided, and not treated as an afterthought. Alansohn (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of sources available to expand the article, and I took a few minutes to get started on an expansion. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the circle and its reconstruction and elimination should satisfy any reasonable standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gtstricky. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, so once the object in question ceases to exist, should we delete the article? Can we extend it to people? Once they die, we delete their articles? Kushal (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into New Jersey Route 73, its a pretty big article as it is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - lots of reliable sources found this subject notable enough to write about. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per WP:BEFORE - Neier (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of WP:RS significant coverage, easily passes WP:NOTE. Whether or not it is current, future, or former is irelevant - notbility is not temporary. It certainly seems to be part of an encyclopedic list of such features as noted by User:Alansohn above. Such circles were used more extensively and maintained longer in NJ than in other states and are a significant feature of the NJ road system. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 12:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No vote as I am the other side of the Atlantic -- This article appears to be about a road junction. The fact that it is no longer a circle does not mean that many years when it was one are NN. However there are alternatives to deletion:
  • Merge with highway;
  • Merge with locality;
  • Improve description of the present form of the intersection and move to "Berlin Intersection". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each of these solutions implies that, once the circle is paved over, its notability degrades from article-worthy to at most section-worthy. The fact that we already have an article and the sources that are cited in the article show us that this article should be kept. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Although I'm inclined to vote neutral or delete because the circle no longer exists, WP:NTEMP and WP:RS are definitely present. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boring until it's given encyclopedic treatment. Sources seem to support inclusion now clean it up and add some dazzle so the lede explains for the rest of us why a traffic circle can be notable and interesting. Banjeboi 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2008 (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.