Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kassel-Mitte


 * 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. Roads at this level may be generally accepted as notable, but it does not follow that each and every interchange is also notable, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Kassel-Mitte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →  17:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg.  As is clear from the map in this article, this interchange is of an unusual configuration, being a four leaf clover for only a three way interchange (which suggests that it was designed to accommodate an extension of the A49 eastwards from Kassel that has never been built because of the close proximity of the former iron curtain). Bahnfrend (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep its been a encyclopedic precedent that raods of this level are generally notable per WP:GNG, even if not sometimes you just gotta WP:IAR Julie2016 (talk) 22:20, 10 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.