Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Dernbach


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 17:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Dreieck Dernbach

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another half stack interchange. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by a small number of systemically biased editors who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they fail GNG without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason, this nomination, like all disruptive editing, should be treated as vandalism, and should be withdrawn.  See also my more detailed comments at Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" (regardless of whether this is or not) is not vandalism. You may wish to strike the part of your comment that is contrary to policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - simply incorrect. And further evidence that Bahnfrend is lacking in AGF. I've nominated interchange articles from several countries, not simply Germany. It's simply that Germany had a plethora of non-notable interchanges which had articles, which the other countries did not. Their use of the term disruptive is a clear indication they don't have a clear grasp of the concept. If I wanted all interchanges in Germany gone, why did I not nominate all the others I've passed over? Hmmm. An apology seems warranted.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Completely agree. This problem of systematically biased editors running amok all over Wikipedia casting their own unilateral law has to stop immediately. This is a mockery of the very foundations that Wikipedia was built on. The Dreieck Dernbach is a historic autobahn that dates back the early sixties and is therefore eminently notable. I strongly recommend that we strike this as a vandalism and delete the page immediately without further delay.Sonarclawz (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTVAND, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:AGF. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being a named interchange is in many - most - nations, an indication that an interchange is unique and may well be notable. On Autobahns, there is no such inference, as all Autobahn interchanges are named. There is no evidence that this passes WP:GNG and no evidence that there is any disruption here, only an attempt to clear-cut an unfortunatly large group of articles on subjects that do not pass the GNG and should not have individual articles. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 31 December 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.