Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Kassel-Süd


 * 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 redirect to Bundesautobahn 44 with.  MBisanz  talk 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Dreieck Kassel-Süd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 AEnglish-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 ) 04:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And as mentioned elsewhere, if it was British it would, as a named interchange, be extremely likely to be notable. Named interchanges in Germany are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and have to be judged vis-a-vis GNG on other merits. WP:CSB does not mean letting non-notable content into the encyclopedia just because it's "not from the English-speaking areas". - The Bushranger One ping only 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no language bias taking place here, why is it that in a dozen AfD's I've worked, not a single delete !vote has reported either reading the German references or looking for sources on Google. The fact that they don't talk about how they got the article's references translated from German indicates to me that as a group they've not looked at the references.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As for "letting non-notable content" into the encyclopedia, see WP:N. Furthermore, these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are already covered in our encyclopedia.  What do you mean by the words "letting non-notable content into the encyclopedia"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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 Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg.  In relation to this interchange in particular, it is an unusual one for global political reasons, in that it was designed and partially constructed to be a two part four way interchange, but its completion was prevented by the Cold War division of Germany; plans for the network were later changed and the interchange modified accordingly. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep All of these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are topics proper in the encyclopedia as either redirects to one of the two related Autobahn articles, or as standalone articles, and this is primarily a decision of those maintaining the articles.  This particular interchange has 2004 history of the name change along with the associated controversy, as well as there is 2014 material available from hna.de regarding route changes.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - the last two keep !votes offer no valid argument based on policy for those, just more trivial mentions and routine coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 January 2016‎


 * 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.