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 "keep" opinions either do not address or reject the community-accepted requirement for article topics, no matter their nationality, to be the subject of substantial coverage by reliable sources (WP:N). These opinions are accordingly given less weight.  Sandstein  12:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dreieck Hockenheim[edit]

Dreieck Hockenheim (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 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} 04:16, 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 → 19:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[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 ) 04:47, 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned elsewhere, "we would keep them if they were British" because a named interchange in Jolly Olde would very likely be notable. A named interchange on the Autobahn is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. We should not be "expand[ing] equal coverage" by covering non-notable subjects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick look at the Brit categories shows very few articles other than on roundabouts and some other intersections in London. I'm a bit dubious as to the latter, though perhaps London is also a state of mind, but in any case there's no British precedent for highway interchanges to be notable as a rule. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is what WP:RUNOFTHEMILL has to says about streets,

“

For example, a detailed street map shows every street within a city, down to every cul-de-sac with just four houses. Every city has at least several detailed street maps that have been published. But in one square mile of an urban area, there are hundreds, even thousands of streets. And there can be hundreds of square miles within a city and its suburbs. It is not practical to create an article on every single street, as the high volume might overwhelm the capacity of available editors to maintain them.

”

“

What not to create The side street where once every few years, a news-reported crime has occurred

”

FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As mentioned above and elsewhere, Autobahn interchanges are invariably named and, therefore, have no special presumption of notability from their status. There is no apparent evidence that this interchange passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete There is no consensus for the default retention of interchanges, period, and there is no claim that this one is notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or Redirect to Bundesautobahn 6 with Template:R with possibilities  Every Kreuz or Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and the encyclopedia has good coverage of the Autobahns.  There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia, and this one policy requirement refutes each of the above delete arguments or pseudo-arguments.  The most that policy allows with a consensus of non-notability is a full merge to one of the target articles.  (This would be before consideration of WP:DUE and WP:V.)  The argument that this topic fails WP:GNG carries little weight, since first of all it is certainly not clear that it fails WP:GNG, and secondly since these Kreuz's and Dreieck's satisfy the fundamental purpose of notability, to limit topics to those described in the nutshell as "attracts the attention of the world at large".  Given that major roads in Western civilization attract ongoing daily attention from multiple layers of government and news media as well as the general public, editors bringing articles like this to AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT.  This article needs work, so a redirect would be ok with me for now, but this is primarily a decision of the editors maintaining the topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 6 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.