Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gainesville Interchange


 * 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   merge to U.S. Route 29 in Virginia. I am closing this based upon the present arguments and the current condition of the article. What the article could become is not the issue. Closure here is without prejudice to re-creation should new information become available. JodyBtalk 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Gainesville Interchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable interchange, construction project can easily be covered in the I-66 and US 29 articles.  Dough 48  72  15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into I-66 and US 29.  :  pep  per   20:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The info can be merged into U.S. Route 29 in Virginia rather than U.S. Route 29 as the former is a state-detail page focused on the VA part of the route. In merging the content, there is no need for a redirect to exist.  Dough 48  72  20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into I-66 and US 29 as per User:Pepper. --Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per User:Dough4872 –Fredddie™ 22:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge but with a concern. The Gainesville Interchange project is primarily about the junction of I-66 and US 29, but other roads affected by the project include SR 619 and SR 55. Do we need to also place information about the project on the pages for these routes? --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That could be done.  Dough 48  72  15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per the above. If there are sources that refer to a "Gainesville Interchange", then a redirect is not unreasonable - and cheap, too. If there's some other interchange that would fit the name better, perhaps the redirect should point there. We could always Disambiguate if it gets too complicated. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm finding it very difficult to understand how merging this content to two or more other articles could make this a better encyclopedia. Surely it's better to put the information in one place that can be linked from other articles rather than create such content forks? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The interchange itself is not notable and cannot sustain its own article. The construction project concerning the interchange can be mentioned in the roads that it affects because it is a part of the history of those roads. A redirect is unnecessary as this interchange alone is not notable.  Dough 48  72  19:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge per above. To adress Phil's comments above. I think the question is, what makes this interchanges special (and noteworthy) over the millions of highway interchanges in the world? Currently, the article doesn't make any statement to justify the interchange is any different than any other interchange on the planet. If the article can be expanded to show that it is unique, I'll change my vote in a heartbeat. For examples of articles for interchanges that I have supported keeping, see Newhall Pass Interchange, Four Level Interchange, and Mousetrap. In the case of the Mousetrap article, this interchange is mostly notable for an accident that occurred in the 1980s. So it's always possible that while the interchange is not currently notable, that could change. Dave (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed my point, which was nothing to do with "what makes this interchanges[sic] special (and noteworthy) over the millions of highway interchanges in the world", which would only be relevant if this was the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. I asked the question of how Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with this information in two or more articles rather than in just one. Nobody has yet answered that. And nobody has explained how the sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination fail to confer notability, as defined in our general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On further review, there isn't anything in the article worth merging, so I change my vote to delete. Dave (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per Dough or Delete.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I had added the information about the construction to the Interstate 66 and U.S. Route 29 in Virginia articles. At this point, there is no point for this article to exist and it should simply be deleted with no redirect.  Dough 48  72  02:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please hold off on deleting the article for a short while. This weekend I'll add the appropriate text to the SR 55 and SR 619 articles, but I need the Gainesville Interchange article as a jumping-off point for my additions. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must note that none of those editors asking for deletion has addressed the issue of whether the article subject passes the general notability guideline, and none of those with a "merge" opinion has explained why it is better to fork this content to two or four other articles rather than have it in one place where it can be maintained consistently. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The interchange alone fails the GNG, Wikipedia does not have articles for every single interchange, only the more important ones. This interchange is simply a run of the mill interchange. The construction information about the interchange can be covered as a historical event in the roads that serve it.  Dough 48  72  20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I already asked this above, but as no answer has been provided I'll ask again: how do the spoon-fed sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination not satisfy the general notability guideline? Last time I checked The Washington Post was a reliable source. And, for the third time, how is it better to have the same information in two or four places rather than one? I'm getting the impression that I'm talking to a brick wall here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'd be loath to mention the interchange by name on any article. It's a partial cloverleaf interchange shaped by space constraints and the angles of the intersecting highways.  Nothing more and nothing less. –Fredddie™ 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But what does that have to do with notability? It has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources, such as The Washington Post, which has coverage of important aspects of this interchange such as its effect on businesses in the area. Maybe to road nerds it's no more than a "partial cloverleaf interchange shaped by space constraints and the angles of the intersecting highways", but to the general public it's far more important that that. Could anyone replying to this please give some indication that they have actually read the sources that I have referred to several times above? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (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.