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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hegau[edit]

(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} 04:00, 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. 68.231.77.22 (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC) - I apparently was logged out while editing. This comment is mine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 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. It is also clear, from the map and description in this article, that the intersection is unusual, perhaps unique, in form, for a reason likely to be explained in reliable sources. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 2nd choice Redirect to Bundesautobahn_81 with Template:R with possibilities I have been studying this AfD this morning and used Google translate to open up the two references. I have also looked at the source of the map in the article. I also looked at the Dutch and German articles. The Dutch has a map that would be useful. It is interesting to compare the map in the article to the similar map at www.autobahnkreuze-online.de/Kreuz_Hegau, because the later shows the name of the topic. Much of the article is verifiable from maps and the other sources provided. I'm less sure about the verifiability of the history.

This is now the third AfD I have studied with identical vague unsupported claims in the nomination. As for wp:notability, if this topic has not been wp:noticed by the world at large, what is it that the w:de:Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute) has been reporting on a regular basis since 2005? Is the alleged traffic of 50,000 daily riding on a fake topic, and the commuters really use a cow pasture? Is the interchange sending out press releases in such a way that cartographers are being subverted by money spent on PR agencies? No, AfDs like this need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Or better yet, IMO, skip the prods, speedy delete nominations, and AfDs entirely and encourage our content contributors to produce more instead of driving them off with template bombing. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of that above points to notability. Simple existence. Which isn't the same thing. 50k per day is very light traffic on a major thoroughfare. Not notable is not vague. In fact, it's one of the basic qualifications. There are German interchanges which do show some notability, such as Frankfurter Kreuz or Kamener Kreuz, or ones which might be notable, like Schönefelder Kreuz, due to its connection to the Berlin Wall. But those have actual claims of notability, not mere existence. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points about wp:notability: The first is that even if this topic were deemed non-notable, given the presence of merge targets, non-notability is not a deletion argument. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg, "Regarding the mention of a previous Afd for Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, one of the statements there was, 'the information is clearly non-controversial and verifiable, and if an article is not warranted for a particular item, it should be merged into the corresponding larger articles rather than deleted.' " I also said, "The nomination argument that this topic is 'non-notable' does not reflect the basic concept of notability on Wikipedia...roads in Western civilization receive on-going and in-depth attention from multiple layers of government, cartographers, and news media. The existence of potholes can remove elected officials. Arguments at AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT."

Your claim of "very light traffic" is something of a WP:NOT argument, but you've not provided any metric to identify a cut off. I seem to recall that the traffic level near a large mall in Missouri was 33,000, so 50,000 sounds to me like a high traffic volume. In this case, my sense is that autobahns exist to carry a lot of traffic, so any of these interchanges deemed worthy of being named do not seem to fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, in case you missed it, might I refer you to Wikipedia's deletion policy, in particular, take a look at WP:DEL8, in case you missed it, which clearly says that if an article isn't notable, than that's a reason for deletion. I would have suggested merge, if I felt there was material here to warrant it. I dont'. Second, I've stated that it's not notable, now per AfD, it is encumbant on those !voting keep to show that it is notable, so your assertion that I provide the metric is a bit misplaced. However, several interchanges with more than double that traffic have been deleted in recent weeks, so consensus would appear to be that 50k isn't a lot. But, we just agree to disagree on this one. It happens. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could reply, but I'm not going to risk an argument. Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at this article, and as I said above I'm not sure about the verifiability of the History section. Also, although WP:RS maps are available to our readers for WP:V verification, the article itself lacks a map. A redirect may be easier for User:Bahnfrend et al to refine the article when they are ready than adding cn tags to the current article. Not sure. Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is one of the few of these with a potentially interesting layout but again, the problem is that neither the text nor (apparently) the sources say this. If you look at an American article, say on the Springfield Interchange, one finds citations testifying to the notoriety of these exercises in highway macrame. These German articles as a group lack these notices. We need claims to notability, and none of these articles have them or for that matter appear to have to potential for it. Mangoe (talk) 04:03, 4 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.