Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambacher Kreuz


 * 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. After relisting twice and having strong points on both sides, no clear consensus has been established to delete the article and therefore defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  02:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Gambacher Kreuz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. No evidence of notability, indeed, no notability asserted in the article. Nothing but routine coverage.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Ordinary interchange.  Dough   4872   15:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the same nominator who ran off some of our content contributors with multi-language skills, starting last Summer, by attacking our coverage of Kreuzes and Dreiecks. I don't maintain a log, but last time I checked, the count was three valuable content contributors lost.  Looking at his/her contributions list, you will see that his/her decisions are done in mere seconds, at a pace that doesn't suggest depth of analysis and due consideration.  I have consistently treated this contributor with respect, and in return I have been told that my input is not needed.  This cookie-cutter nomination is nothing new, IMO shows poor learning skills given the existing refutations for these arguments, and IMO shows disrespect for the community in not preparing the community for the specific AfD discussion at hand.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, major interchange, plenty of sources, needs cleanup not deletion. More well-known in Germany than many individual Autobahnen. If three-digit roads are notable, so should this interchange. —Kusma (t·c) 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A note: In everyday conversation, many Germans will explain directions using the names of the Autobahnkreuze they pass. Traffic news assume everybody knows the names and uses them to describe where on a particular Autobahn some incident has happened. This makes German Autobahnkreuze different from many other countries' intersections, which usually do not have names that people would look up. Given that intersections usually can't be redirected to either of the crossing roads, anything other than simply having an article about them is doing the reader a disservice. —Kusma (t·c) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This interchange is very well-known. It's the intersection of two major Autobahns and one end of the Sauerlandlinie connecting Dortmund and the north with Rhine-Main. The intersection is a key navigational point, frequently mentioned in traffic flow and accident reports. Plenty of sources available. Guffydrawers (talk)
 * WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GEOROAD appear to be the relevant guidelines, but may need some interpretation in this case. The article subject is covered frequently by the German press, especially as the site of accidents, when expansion projects are raised and when undergoing maintenance. Finding mentions of the intersection is easy - working them into the article less so, especially due to the language factor, but I have tidied the article and will add refs that appear to add value. German WP has an article on the intersection and it's one of a handful of intersections that has wide recognition; it is a significant navigational point within the German transport system and is referred to by name. The frequency with which it is mentioned in German sources may well prompt an English speaker to wish to know what and where this 'Kreuz' is. This article is in Category:Road interchanges in Germany which is comparable to Category:Motorway junctions in England and Category:Road interchanges in the United States. The article content could be merged into the articles covering each of the two Autobahns it connects, but that may be less efficient than its own article. Guffydrawers (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete—as per the others previously, this appears to be an ordinary interchange, and any coverage warranted would be in the intersecting highways' articles. Comparisons to three-digit roads are misplaced, as those are at least full roadways, not individual interchanges, and we typically do not ascribe any notability to individual interchanges that cannot demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps some cultural differences here? Two contributors very familiar with the article's subject and location voting to keep and two editors an ocean away voting to delete. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * - or it could simply be 2 editors, familiar with WP policies and guidelines are !voting to delete based on those policies and guidelines. Neither of the !keep votes have presented any rationale based on policies and guidelines to keep. It's always nice to keep the discussion about the article, and not about the editors. Onel 5969  TT me 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. I have now mentioned relevant WP guidelines above, but they don't appear to nail down this particular case. If German language refs will help I'd be glad to list them. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A Google search for the string "Gambacher Kreuz" yields over 18,000 hits. Apart from several relating to accidents and maintenance in national and regional press (example) there are articles on extending the intersection (example here) and descriptions of locations in relation to Gambacher Kreuz (here) and (here), as well as acknowledgement that the intersection is known beyond its immediate area (here). Guffydrawers (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - First, thanks for putting the reasoning for your keep !vote above. Second, however, all these references are WP:ROUTINE, and not the type of in-depth coverage which is necessary to show that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. For example, in Arizona (where I live) I think there are two interchanges which rise to the level of WP:GNG. They do so because they are written about, in-depth, in national and international magazines. In addition we probably have another 25-30 interchanges which approximate the level of coverage that the subject of this AfD is at. In addition, many have probably double the daily traffic of this Kreuz, so the fact that this is a well-used interchange also does not make it notable. Others, like the interchange between Interstate 17 and Interstate 40, which is the terminus of the most used freeway in Arizona where it intersects with one of the 2 most major intercontinental interstates in the US, also doesn't merit its own page. I hope this makes sense.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, but it doesn't match my understanding of notable. The US interchanges you describe sound well worth articles, especially compared with the thousands of much more obscure article subjects in WP e.g. tiny villages, single municipal rail stations, sportspeople from minor leagues in small countries, individual songs from niche artists etc. That a feature/landmark that 100,000+ people pass each day and many more hear named in the press, radio and in conversation is not notable enough is somewhat opaque to me, but so it goes. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with your assessment of what does or does not qualify for notability, but simply applying existing guidelines. Under which, any populated place is inherently notable, while the same is not true for interchanges, which must show notability as per WP:GNG. But as you say, and so it goes. Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This does appear to be a major autobahn interchange. News about its reconstruction, like this source indicates its notability. Non-notable interchanges don't get written about in this way.  Driving away multi-language writers as Unscintillating mentioned above isn't helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep I think it is notable and useful article.-- Musa  Talk  11:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete instead and Draft if needed as this is still questionable, there are several and I'm questionable about simply including them after closely examining them. FWIW, I've marked this as patrolled before and not pursued any deletion attempts but I also question that this could be improved. SwisterTwister   talk  05:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I ask this be kept opened as someone has notified me they will vote soon. SwisterTwister   talk  07:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - note to closing admin - while impassioned, none of the keep !votes are based on policy or guidelines.  Onel 5969  TT me</i> 12:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment "plenty of sources" is clearly based on our guidelines, for example WP:GNG. Also, notability criteria are criteria for inclusion if they are met, and do not mean an article that some guideline is not talking about needs to be deleted. A vote can be based on guidelines without citing any WP:ALPHABETSOUP. —Kusma (t·c) 12:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making my point - that's not what the guideline says, "plenty of sources" is meaningless. It's the quality and in-depth coverage in those sources, which this routine interchange clearly doesn't meet. This discussion has been open for weeks. Currently there are still only 3 sources - one self published, one non-independent, and the BAST source (which currently doesn't even point to something about this particular interchange - rather is a link to a list of pdf files, which appear to be simple lists of statistics. To actually quote the guideline you refer to, to meet GNG a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Again, nothing here meets that criteria.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:40, 7 May 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.