Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Walsrode


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Dreieck Walsrode

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable interchange. No assertion of notability, and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete—fails to meet the burden of WP:GNG. One two sources are cited, one is a WP:SPS and the other is a compilation of statistics, neither of which demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" as we require for stand-alone articles.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Imzadi1979, I believe that you are on record as disregarding maps in considering sourcing, yet much of this article is sourced by maps. Do you agree that this article currently satisfies WP:V?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's verifiable to maps, but that's only one part of the equation. To have an article, we look at WP:GNG, not WP:V, and maps alone do not satisfy the "significant" coverage part of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject".  Imzadi 1979  →   09:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N states, "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." All of these could be works by cartographers.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They could be, but simply appearing on a map is not "significant coverage", period. That's the cartographic equivalent of dropping a name in the middle of a newspaper article on a different topic. "Significant coverage" is what WP:GNG requires for a dedicated article.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the text I quoted from WP:N applies to more than WP:GNG. Within WP:GNG, the definition of "significant coverage" is, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Examples of trivial mentions are at WP:ORG.  Readers including editors extract meaning from maps just as they do other source material.  Barber Island is an article sourced by maps.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's take another look at the article being discussed here. There are exactly two footnotes in the whole article. The first is a self-published source in German. It's embedding an OpenStreetMap view of the interchange. OSM is essentially a wiki itself, and other wikis open to public editing are considered SPS and not RSs for our purposes. The remainder of that webpage is also self-published. The second footnote is to a page listing various maps and tables for download with traffic counts. In this case, it wouldn't matter if those traffic counts were presented in either form. Neither source rises to the level required of GNG. Turning back to maps as sources in general, I stand by my statement. Simply appearing on a map is not significant coverage. Appearing on the map with additional notations is needed to get beyond classification as a trivial mention.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You agree that some maps (those that contain "additional notations") can be reliable sources and used to satisfy WP:N. My first question here was, "Does this article satisfy WP:V" and you agreed that it does.  Putting that together with what you've just said above about GNG for this article, that would mean that to you, WP:V can be satisfied with a trivial mention?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a notability source for Dreieck Werder: . Although the article is about Bundesautobahn 2, half of the article is a satellite map of Dreieck Werder.  Is half of this article a trivial mention?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about the interchange, it's about the A2, with an illustration that shows the interchange. Totally trivial coverage. In addition, it's a state-run information site, about a state piece of infrastructure, so not really independent.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not at all clear that being a part of the government means that a source is not independent. Governments represent the people-at-large, and contain multiple agencies and layers of local, state, and federal.  WP:RS states, "The reliability of a source depends on context."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of points are in order. WP:V doesn't have the bearing on this discussion that you think it does. The bar the topic/article has to exceed is WP:GNG. Trivial mentions, such as just appearing on a map would be verifiable, but not notable. Also, we aren't saying that government sources aren't reliable, in fact I'd say they generally are. The question is whether or not they're independent of the subject. and if it's the same government agency that owns and maintains the interchange, it's not independent for the purposes of GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This thread of discussion is mostly about maps, and I don't think you can identify an example of where "just appearing" on a map is also a trivial mention. I see that Template:Coord is used on 950,000 pages so there must be something of value just from that one piece of information, and each named point has a relationship with every other named point.  A trivial mention is something like someone's name appearing in a phone book.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a major road infrastructure hub linking the 3 major North German cities of Bremen, Hamburg and Hanover. Wikipedia already accepts the genre as evinced by "Category:Road interchanges by country" which lists the interchanges of 18 countries, including 52 interchange articles in the USA alone. Bermicourt (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The fact that there are categories for these types of structures, does not make each interchange notable. There is no evidence that this particular interchange meets notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The categories establish that these types of structures may be considered notable. And I have pointed out the notability of this one - just look at the map!!! Or is it only US structures that are notable in this encyclopedia? Bermicourt (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Size doesn't establish notability, and this has nothing to do with not being a US structure. It is simply a case of notability, or, in this case, the lack thereof. If this is notable, where is the in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources?  Onel 5969  TT me 12:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Regarding the banality of these topics, we have heard "like thousands of others" and "run-of-the-mill" repeated ad infinitum, yet today I took User:Bahnfrend's advice to read the article on Reichsautobahn.  The autobahn network was a proud effort of pre-WWII Germany to create a structure of roads to be compared with the Egyptian pyramids.  Simple things such as visible bridge arches were deemed something to avoid to improve aesthetics.  The article finishes, "After the war, with the exception of the parkway aesthetic, the Reichsautobahn became the model for highways in other countries... Dwight D. Eisenhower realized the benefits of the Reichsautobahn during his time as an officer in the US Army, and as President, used those ideas to bring about the Interstate Highway System in the U.S..."
 * Unscintillating (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Which is something that speaks to the notability of the system and has no bearing on the notability of this specific interchange. Notability can't be inherited; instead, it must be established in each individual article.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Imzadi1979, There is general agreement at Wikipedia that notability is not inherited, and for those not sure, it can be verified at WP:N. The autobahns, autobahndreiecks, and autobahnkreuzes are all parts of the autobahn "network" in the sense intended by WP:GEOROAD.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Imzadi1979, We know from the above quote from Reichsautobahn that the "parkway aesthetic" present in the German autobahn network is something not shared by the rest of the world. The point remains that generalities to the effect that this topic is like "thousands of others" or "run-of-the-mill" are speaking without the very subject knowledge which you state "must be established in each individual article".  Believe it or not, there are still people posting to these autobahn AfDs making arguments such as "just like thousands of others".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These interchanges are just like many others in the rest of the world, and GEOROAD doesn't establish a presumption of notability for any interchange, just the overall network and component highways. It does not extend that presumption to the level of the parts of component highways. Trying to say that because an interchange is an autobahnkreuz or autobahndreieck imports some notability to it is the opposite of allowing notability to be inherited. When it comes to interchanges, notability has to be individually established in each article through the demonstration of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". This "parkway aesthetic" is not unique to Germany, nor is it really distinguishing at the level of an interchange, so I don't buy your second argument. If it were truly a distinguishing characteristic of an interchange, the articles nominated at AfD would be making that claim and citing reliable sources to back it up. That fact remains that there were dozens of articles on German interchanges not long ago, many of which were nominated for deletion through AfD or PROD, most of which cited only two sources. Of those two sources, one is self-published (fails the RS prong of the GNG test) and the other is just traffic data (fails the significant coverage prong of GNG). These articles were not making any claims to distinguish them from any other interchange in the world (making them "run of the mill") other than the fact that they were German and named. To keep these, you need to demonstrate that significant coverage (i.e. not trivial mentions) exists, even if it's not currently in use in the article, something which has not been done in many case.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As per our article on banal, "Banal describes something that is common in a boring way, to the point of being predictable." The point of this opening comment had to do with editors using proof by assertion to say "this topic is banal, it is like thousands of others", or "this topic is banal, it is run-of-the-mill".  WP:RUNOFTHEMILL talks about cul-de-sacs and coverage of every street in every square mile of a city, which draws the conclusion that the approximately 200 kreuzes and dreiecks are unlike "run-of-the-mill".  The point remains that generalities to the effect that Dreieck Walsrode is like "thousands of others" or "run-of-the-mill" are speaking without the very subject knowledge which you state "must be established in each individual article".  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What WP:GEOROAD says is that international road networks are "typically notable". It seems that the way you read GEOROAD is that "network" only means one article for each international network as a whole.  Regarding your statement, " does not extend that presumption [of notability] to the level of the parts of component highways.", I don't see that the document makes a statement one way or the other.  It does say that "motorway service areas" may be notable, and drilling down I find that we have articles on 80 motorway service areas, for example Abington services.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our Reichsautobahn article says, "...with the exception of the parkway aesthetic, the Reichsautobahn became the model for highways in other countries..." You say, "This 'parkway aesthetic' is not unique to Germany..."  But you provide no evidence, and give no reason why anyone else would have tried to make their roads comparable to the Egyptian pyramids.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (drone)  12:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete There is nothing special claimed about this interchange, and the consensus of recent deletions affirms the principle that interchanges are not inherently notable, nor do they inherit notability by connecting notable roads. Mangoe (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, (1) You say, "There is nothing special claimed about this interchange, but as per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (2) When you say that an autobahndreieck connects notable roads, can you say where one stops and the other starts? Does your definition of "connects" mean that only the pavement is part of the autobahn, and not the shoulder that receives the landscaping?  The word dreieck means triangle.  Does not your definition mean that the dreieck is only two sides of the triangle?  Do you reject the idea that autobahns, their landscaping, autobahndreiecks, and autobahnkreuzes are all part of one structure?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (3) WP:N says, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort...If appropriate sources cannot be found...consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context." You agree that Dreieck Walsrode "connects notable roads", so is there a problem with merging this topic to Bundesautobahn 27?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:N states, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."Also, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context."
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quotes from two policies and an editing guideline:
 * WP:Deletion policy states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
 * WP:Editing policy point 9 states, "Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".
 * WP:REDIRECT states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...1. They have a potentially useful page history..."
 * WP:REDIRECT states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...3. They aid searches on certain terms."
 * WP:REDIRECT states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article...
 * FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bundesautobahn 27 (A 27).  This is the best thing for this topic for the encyclopedia at this time.  The topic is currently linked from five articles.  WP:N says, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context."  For my part, I tried to find a source for the construction date, but could only find that it was built before 1969.  This dreieck terminates A 27, which makes A 27 an ideal place to cover this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2016 (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.