Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judge Harry Pregerson 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   keep. v/r - TP 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've lived in Southern California all my life and have never heard this name; nobody uses it. Just because it's a named interchange doesn't make it notable; there's lots of named interchanges in CA that aren't ever called by that name, not even in the traffic reports. As far as the FHWA design award, that doesn't confer notability upon the interchange and can be briefly mentioned in the 105 and 110 articles. Rschen7754 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete FHWA hands out those design awards by the dozen every year or so, diluting their significance. As for the rest of the article, it can be covered in the I-105 and I-110 articles, name and all. It does not need to be consolidated in a single location, especially if secondary sources (newspapers, TV stations, magazines) never use the name.  Imzadi 1979   →   21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nomination rationale basically amounts to "I've never heard of it and I'm an authority on the subject, so it needs to go." I am, however, more convinced by Imzadi's argument regarding the significance of the subject's biggest claim to notability. I'm not going to lie; I don't exactly have an argument for keeping this article that wouldn't amount to one of the many ATA, and if I were an uninvolved user stumbling across this AfD I certainly wouldn't !vote to keep it. I started this article before I ever became involved at AfD, and I know a lot more about Wikipedia policies now than I did then. I'll keep looking for more sources, etc. to demonstrate notability if I have the time before this AfD period is over, but I won't exactly throw a fit if this ends up getting deleted. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it just isn't referred to that much in reliable sources - look at Google News: . A Google search doesn't turn up any RSes on the first page, either. --Rschen7754 22:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nom's main stated rationale is the naming of the topic ("never heard this name; nobody uses it") which has little to do with notability.  A notable topic having an obscure official name doesn't make it non-notable.  This certainly is a remarkable interchange and this is based on reliable sources.  Besides the Federal Highway Administration design award lending to notability, this book calls this interchange, "One of the most esthetically pleasing examples of freeway design," CBS affiliate KGPE calls it "California's - Craziest Intersection.." . --Oakshade (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A blog is not a reliable source. The FHWA award doesn't lend notability, as described above. You provide no proof that this topic is notable as a stand-alone article. This can be covered with just a few sentences in the 105 and 110 articles. --Rschen7754 23:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." tedder (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of this station." - gonna say no. --Rschen7754 00:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen this many times when a reliable source publishes material under the word "blog." You're mistaking a self published source like someone's livejournal blog with a reliable source like a television news program and its reporters that publish items with the affectation "blog."  A reliable source doesn't magically become non-reliable with the word "blog."  If a New York Times reporter publishes a "blog" as an official New York Times blog, it's still the New York Times. --Oakshade (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But no, if you look at the guy's blog linked above, it expressly says "The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of this station." --Rschen7754 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's published by a secondary reliable source, just as an op-ed in the New York Times "do not necessarily reflect the views" of the NYT, it would still be considered coverage by a secondary reliable source.--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what WP:RS indicates. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." --Rschen7754 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "A statement of fact" has nothing to do with notability. It's only important to verify the content which is not what this AfD is about.  If a New York Times op-ed piece gives coverage to something, that's still the NYT giving coverage however opinionated it is. --Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The information covering the interchange can easily be mentioned in the I-105 and I-110 articles. Change to Keep, interchange appears notable enough for its own article.  Dough 48  72  23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is a very notable civil engineering example of the Greater Los Angeles area's freeway system. It's official name may not be used in ordinary discussion(i.e the 105/110 exchange), but that is it's name, none the less. The rationale for deleting the article is absurd. The editor does not "recognize" the name...Therefore this rather interesting bit of transportation architecture does not exist, and should not have an article? What next? We delete the article for Union Station(Los Angeles), because some editor has never been there??? The Scythian 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a good argument. Nobody recognizes this name, whereas people easily recognize El Toro Y, for example. --Rschen7754 06:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we could rename the article, but deleting it makes no sense. It's akin to chopping off the arm, to save a swollen pinky. The Scythian 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, there's really not a whole lot more that can be written about this interchange. Thus, it should be merged away. Is the interchange between 241 and 261 now encyclopedic? How about the one between the 5 and the 133? And on and on... --Rschen7754 07:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, from an engineering standpoint, I would argue that it is. As you said though, there is not much written about it, other than lots of photographs from tourists on their blogs. The Scythian 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scythian77. 89119 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename. Keep per Scythian (fine example of civil engineering).  Rename per Rschen7754 (use common names). –Fredddie™ 03:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The naming confusion isn't a ground for deletion. (I tend to think the current name is the best one, since it is the official name and there is--as far as I know--no single more common name, in part because the 105 itself has many different names.  But this issue should be worked out in the normal course of editing.  )  The interchange itself is a notable part of the L.A. highway system.  The design award may or may not convey notability, but the facts noted in that award ("the first intermodal interchange in California with vertical transferability accommodating cars, vanpools/carpool/buses/light rail") do.  The lede of this 1989 Los Angeles Times article makes the case succinctly: "There never has been anything quite like the high-flying, $135-million traffic interchange being built in South-Central Los Angeles to link the new Century Freeway with a remodeled Harbor Freeway." Ronald B. Taylor, "Soaring Interchange on Century Freeway to Be One of a Kind", Los Angeles Times, December 10, 1989. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (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.