Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg


 * 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. The arguments for this article's retention simply do not hold up to snuff. Therefore the article is found to not meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Duisburg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, the deprod statement on the talk page was, "==Removal of Prod== *Oppose deletion of this and all similar articles: see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC) " Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no such consensus. See Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz, Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Also, I have expanded the subject article since this nomination was created. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - you pick a no-consensus due to procedure, not guidelines; another with a split; and a third where your position is in the minority. You also fail to bring up Articles for deletion/Kreuz Leverkusen, Articles for deletion/Kreuz Magdeburg, Articles for deletion/Dreieck Stuhr, Articles for deletion/Kreuz Alzey, Articles for deletion/Kreuz Neunkirchen, and Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide (2nd nomination) - which is the re-do of the original one you bring up. So, 6 deleted, 1 heading for deletion, 1 split decision (at this point). And you don't see an "emerging consensus"? Hmmmm....  Onel 5969  TT me 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response: Once again, you misrepresent the nature of the "no consensus". In October 2015, several editors pointed out to you and others that at least some of the then block nomination articles clearly met GNG, and that you should not nominate them all in a block, nor nominate any of them separately without doing any research on them.  You waited a couple of months, and then, without notifying all (and probably without notifying any) of the editors who had opposed you, made another block nomination (made up partially of PROD nominations, all of which were clearly inappropriate) without doing any research.  The fact that the block nomination was made on separate pages does not mean that it was not a block nomination.  When it was then pointed out to you that you have followed the wrong procedures and that there is still no consensus, you rely upon some of the outcomes of that procedurally inappropriate block nomination to support your contention that there is an "emerging consensus".  I repeat: there is no consensus.  Your further contention that mine is a minority view is irrelevant - even if only one editor is able to point out either GNG or procedural inappropriateness, a nomination should fail.  I say that it is both highly inappropriate and disruptive for you to nominate simultaneously so many similar articles for deletion when you have already been told not to do so, particularly when you have not done the research you have also been told to do before nominating them.  How do you expect other editors to have the time to find the material for GNG when you are nominating them all of them all at once? Bahnfrend (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, who are you again to be telling other editors what to do and what not to do? Sorry. Your argument doesn't really hold water. And might I suggest at this point you WP:DROPTHESTICK, which several other editors have asked you to do. You really need to read more carefully, and then formulate your arguments more fully. First, I was not involved in the initial block AfD (as you call it) at all. Didn't nominate the non-notable interchanges, didn't join the discussion. Stumbled on the non-notable interchanges all by my lonesome. Second, it was not my contention that there was "emerging consensus", that was another editor's viewpoint. When you disregard that, you get called to the woodshed, showing the overwhelming consensus in 6 other AfD discussions on this same topic. So when you get so many of the facts incorrect, its difficult to listen to anything else you have to say. You shouting from the rooftops that you are right does not make you so. Your lack of civility, and personal attacks are simply becoming more frantic and disconcerting. Again, please drop the stick. And, yes, I am still awaiting for your apology.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Further response to : My further research today has revealed, amongst other things, that the interchange includes a sculpture described in the sources as a symbol of Duisburg. I have expanded the article further to include the further information, which I guess thickens the soup. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Those references that you added in the "History" section are trivial passing mentions that devote no significant coverage whatsoever to this interchange. Longest beer table? Really? The English metaphor is "thin soup" and I bet German has something similar. I have participated in thousands of AfD debates and group (or block) nominations are common. There is nothing at all unusual or improper about 's behavior. Please drop your combative attitude, . It is unseemly and hurts your cause rather than helping it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response: This group nomination concerns a group of articles about subject matter located outside the Anglosphere and considered by more than one other Wikipedia to be notable. I have found other material about this interchange and other interchanges within that group. However, as I do not have unlimited time to edit wikipedia, I do not have enough time to research GNG and add content to all of the articles that have been nominated for deletion, and no editor could reasonably be expected to do so within the applicable time limits. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - and those tidbits you've added to several of the articles add nothing towards the notability of any of those articles. Nice effort, though. Doesn't change the fact that none of them pass WP:GNG. Can't help it if other wikis have lower standards than the English Wikipedia.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response: You're the nominator, so you're not a disinterested assessor of whether they pass GNG or not. One editor has already accepted that my edits to Kreuz Kaiserberg indicate notability, which puts paid to your view that they all fail.  As I don't claim to have finished expanding any of the articles, not even that one, it matters little what you think about what I've done so far.  I repeat: I do not have enough time to research GNG and add content to all of the articles that have been nominated for deletion, and no editor could reasonably be expected to do so within the applicable time limits. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, that editor didn't say that. They did say they felt that particular interchange was notable, but made no mention of your recent edits. They've also commented on several other of the interchanges you've engaged on as to how they are not notable. And that's one of about 12 editors.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This particular case is a named interchange with daily traffic of 160,000, known for its association with the division of Germany during the cold war.  This appears to be a perfectly good article: a unique and interesting topic, the topic fits well in our missing coverage, and it is cited to be verifiable.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - a rationale for keeping this particular interchange would be nice. Your comments on the highway page are nice, but generic, and do not speak to the concept of the notability of individual interchanges.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced. Fulfills WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the above !vote is not visible. Since it cites "WP:IAR", it is the only !votes on this page to cite a policy by using "WP:".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - note to closing editor - none of the keep !votes address the lack of notability. Even those !votes which say it does pass WP:GNG don't say how it does, and the current sourcing is about the autobahns, in which this interchange is mentioned.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 05:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again you talk about wp:notability, when deletion of a topic requires that the topic be BOTH non-notable and insignificant. I've asked you before words to the effect, "Given our policy to fix problems not delete them, why are you trying to get this topic deleted, when if non-notability is your concern, you could be !voting to redirect or merge to one of the two autobahn articles?".  For our encyclopedia, this issue is more important than non-notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you mention the blur between that which is the autobahn, and that which is the autobahnkreuz. This has come up before in our discussion about WP:GEOROAD, which indicates that we want coverage of the autobahn "network".  The long numbered roads and the autobahnkreuzes are all part of the same object.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - what's interesting is your continued refusal to address the lack of notability, and your refusal to see the overriding consensus developing in these discussions. The argument you use above has been discounted in several other AfD discussions. In almost 50 discussions which have been closed, only 2 have reached the conclusion to "keep" (one was my own withdrawal of the nomination). Regardless, take care.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I could get more into a discussion with you about wp:notability, but you don't seem to me to reflect acceptance of the difference between GNG, WP:GEOROAD, and the 2016 version of WP:N. To me, your GNG-centric viewpoint became less substantive when I learned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Kassel-Süd that you dismiss the 2014 material at hna.de as "trivial mentions and routine coverage", and I learned at the AfD for Dreieck Walsrode that you've disregarded a non-prose GNG source (a map) as "totally trivial".  I think that any pretense that a topic with daily traffic of 160,000 is unknown to the world at large over a period of time, is argumentative.  To respond to the argumentum ad populum, your GNG-focus is possibly a mask for the question of if there is sufficient GNG material to write an article, which has not been a requirement since 2007 in WP:N.  The fine points that decide whether a WP:V WP:RS government source is independent for GNG is not an issue when finding material for writing an article that is mostly technical wikiGnome work, not opinion.  Similarly, maps have not been disputed as WP:V WP:RS for writing articles. If you want more WP:V WP:RS sources to write an article, what have you done to locate them?  These kreuz and dreieck topics typically have four or five common search names, "Kreuz Duisburg", "Autobahnkreuz Duisburg", "AK Duisburg", "Duisburg Kreuz", and possibly "Duisburg Interchange".  If you've been checking all of these search terms, it might be helpful to the other editors to add the "Find sources" templates for each.  But I'm also willing to meet you on your terms and discuss the case as if this topic is non-notable, because I'm focused on building an encyclopedia and retaining our content contributors, and I don't have a strong opinion about whether this topic should be standalone or covered in one of the two autobahn articles.  The elephant in the room is that non-notability is not what matters most here for the encyclopedia.  As far as I know, no case has ever been attempted to show that this topic is both non-notable and insignificant.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Final comment - Your recalcitrance and refusal to recognize the, what by now is, overwhelming consensus regarding this issue, makes further discourse unproductive. Take care.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Recalcitrance" is a form of an appeal to authority based on an argumentum ad populum. An English Wikipedia policy is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Which should editors follow?  However, because of your sincerity, I think that you continue to advance the discussion.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing special here.  It's an interchange.  Two highways come together and there's ramps that let you get from one to the other.  Just like every other highway interchange in the world.   See WP:RAWDATA.  Being able to find WP:RS is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for notability.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The essay "Common outcomes" says, "** Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones (e.g. the Springfield Interchange near Washington, D.C.)."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As I wrote on a previous AFD on one of these generic interchange articles, we don't automatically presume that generic interchanges are notable, and there's nothing particular about this one that would cause it to stand out above the 1000s of others. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 03:54, 18 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.