Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 401/410/403 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 delete. joe deckertalk 01:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Highway 401/410/403 Interchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable, sourced almost exclusively to a SPS. Article is also highly misleading, suggesting that the interchange is notable for being under construction for 44 years; it has merely been upgraded at various times. No converage by reliable secondary sources.  Floydian  τ ¢  15:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I was thinking, as the 44 years claim is patently false, but doesn't the interchange itself still deserve an article? Are interchanges normally given articles like highways are? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A select handful are, but they are almost exclusively limited to named interchanges that have some historical or cultural significance (eg. Gravelly Hill Interchange). There's limited primary data available and almost zero coverage by newspapers or publications. -  Floydian  τ ¢  15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys, the interchange started construction in 1974 according to this: http://www.thekingshighway.ca/PHOTOS/Hwy401photos5.htm
 * Indeed. The first ramps (a trumpet), which no longer exist, connected with the then-two-laned Highway 410 were completed in 1978. The outer flyovers to Highway 403 were built from 1977 to 1980, and the inner flyovers between 1982 and 1985. The connection between the 403 and 410 was built from 1991-1992, and the flyover from the 410 to EB401 was built from 1989-1991. New work just began on the missing connections. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

PS This interchange looks impressive so it deserves to be created.


 * Keep - Problems with documentation do not mean that deletion is the remedy. Improve documention, or merge content into the intersecting highways. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, since verifiability and notability are core policies, deletion is the proper course of action. No coverage by reliable secondary sources means the subject doesn't merit an article. The content of the article is almost entirely unreferenced (the self-published source has no value) and poorly written, and does not belong in any of the three highway articles (two of which cover the history of this interchange rather well). -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete—I haven't seen any evidence of notability thus far. It would help, at a minimum, if this interchange had a unique name rather than a moniker that perfunctorily describes it in terms of its intersecting highways. I find the claims of 44 years of construction to be overstated and not reflective of reality based on the comments above. Find some "significant coverage in reliable sourced independent of the subject" (i.e. WP:GNG) and we'll talk. Until then, this article fails to meet the thresholds for inclusion, and it should be deleted.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Just one of hundreds (thousands?) of highway intersections. Yes the roads are very major ones, and the intersection is likely one of Canada's busiest, but there don't seem to be any reliable independent sources showing that this is a notable subject. A verified claim of the traffic volume here would help to show notability. Meters (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Imzadi1979 and the WP:NPA violation. It's not nearly hot enough where I am. –Fredddie™ 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G5) - Article's creator is now indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of . There are no other significant edits by others. --MuZemike 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * May as well play it out at this point... Put down some precedent salt as it were. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it is theoretically possible for a highway interchange to merit its own standalone article under very rarefied circumstances, the vast majority of highway interchanges have no independent notability separately from the highways that they're part of — and nothing here substances or sources any reason why this one would belong in the former class rather than the latter. And a highway interchange having been periodically reconstructed or upgraded, in exactly the same manner as every road in existence is periodically reconstructed or upgraded, is not the same thing having been under construction for the entire time of its existence — so the "44 years of construction" claim is bullpuckey, no more true in and of itself than saying that Highway 401 has been under construction for 102 years just because the original Toronto-Hamilton Highway of 1914 wasn't already built to fully contemporary freeway standards all the way from Windsor to Vaudreuil. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think we can all agree the claim of continuous construction was bogus. Meters (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Imzadi 1979   →   18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Nothing that makes this interchange stand out to have its own article, details can be covered in the articles about the respective highways.  Dough   4872   04:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero indication that this interchange has any standalone notability. -- Kinu  t/c 04:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my examinations have still found nothing actually convincing for its own convincing article at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  19:37, 1 July 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.