Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide


 * 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. At least not as a bundle. Maybe some f the less important ones could be nominated individually.  Sandstein  22:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per the last AfD on the subject, these individual German interchanges fail WP:GNG. Some of them have been recreated from the last AfD, including this one, but the sources cited give raw statistics without any interpretation of their meaning.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given all the information that was given in the German articles, unfortunately i can not find more I am sorry. Lokaas12 04:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokaas12 (talk
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I can't agree that all of these articles are about a non-notable subject, and that all of the articles should therefore be deleted on a blanket basis (which is all that is being suggested at the moment). At least some of the article subjects are clearly notable.  For example, this recent OECD publication states that the Frankfurter Kreuz is the busiest road intersection in Europe.  There are also (German language) reliable sources cited for some of the information in the two other articles in this list that are in my watchlist (although in one case the citations are only in the German wiki article at the moment).  Also, even if it is the fact that there are few English language sources about these subjects, that doesn't make the subject matter non-notable. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another example of an article about a clearly notable subject is Dreieck Havelland, the en.wiki version of which has a number of inline citations to reliable sources. Yes, the sources are all in German, but the subject matter of the article is located in Germany.  Also, at least some of the articles in the list above would be more appropriately tagged with the Expand German tag, because the equivalent de.wiki articles have more extensive referencing. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all - Nondescript interchanges.  Dough   4872   12:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- We have Category:Motorway junctions in England where some of the English equivalents are categorised. These articles would belong in a German equivalent.  The England category covers only a minority of intersections, even those between motorways.  I suspect the appropriate answer is to selectively delete, but I am not qualified to select which.  The fact that the only sources are in German does not prevent them being reliable sources; indeed, if all the sources were English ones, I would question how reliable they were.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * speedily keep as malformed nom. The items are clearly of different notablility. However the common feature of them is salvageability: per WP:NGEO, 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. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep at least Frankfurter Kreuz and Kamener Kreuz, clearly notable intersections (second oldest and busiest in Europe, respectively). Procedural keep others per lack of research done by nominator. —Kusma (t·c) 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - no comment. Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please delete all articles. All articles fail to establish notability or why are they important. There are hundreds of millions of intersections in the world; going by the logic of these articles all should have a page on Wikipedia? Are we trying to convert an encyclopedia into a road-map?  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When the article has valid references, the correct approach is to merge the text wherever appropriate; see WP:NGEO. NOtability is criteria for existence of a separate article. It does not mean that valid nontrivial information must be always deleted. WIkipedia is not paper and has no size limit. If a crossroads in desribed in some sources, this means information about it is of potential interest to people. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We cannot convert wikipedia into a road map: it already has too much of non-road data. But there is nothing wrong to have much geographic information. Of course wikidata would be a better place for this, but I don't think it will be usable any time soon. Even its handling of interwiki links sucks. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From your statement, I will assume you did not read Frankfurter Kreuz, an article about the busiest interchange in Europe. If you do not read the articles, please do not make statements about them. —Kusma (t·c) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.