Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Koblenz


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Koblenz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was de-prodded with the comment, "needs afdv". Just another interchange like thousands of others. Each interchange needs to be individually discussed on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG. This one clearly does not.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete—fails to assert notability in line with WP:GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 12:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To provide more time as requested.  Sandstein  17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – not every interchange is notable. sst ✈  03:31, 1 January 2016 (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. According to one reliable source (here), the logistics centre adjacent to this interchange is rapidly developing, with Amazon and Lidl already in place. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Bog-standard cloverleaf with no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Is there anything that makes this interchange more notable beyond its design? Wikipedia could have articles on thousands of cloverleaf interchanges. There should be stricter criteria here. --Artene50 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Every Kreuz or Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and the encyclopedia has good coverage of the Autobahns.  There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia.  These Kreuz's and Dreieck's satisfy the fundamental purpose of notability, to limit topics to those described in the nutshell as "attracts the attention of the world at large".  Given that major roads in Western civilization attract ongoing daily attention from multiple layers of government and news media as well as the general public, and whose minor defects have the ability to remove politicians from office, editors bringing articles like this to AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT rather than WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Our baseline is the WP:GNG, and this subject has just not attracted "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to warrant coverage as a separate article. WP:V is not the right standard to use for determining if a subject gets an article.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, WP:GNG-centrism is a known bias in our community. WP:GNG is a subset of WP:N.   WP:V is a core content policy, and not a notability guideline.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the few US interchanges with an article, the Springfield Interchange, is not too far from here; but the reason it has an article is that there has been a lot of press on it over the years because of the long series of alterations caused partly by changes in the connecting roads but also because it was for many years grossly inadequate. Meanwhile the rest of the DC beltway interchanges just sit there and only show up in traffic reports and in routine traffic statistics. Sure, inerchanges have the potential for notability, but few actually achieve it: mostly they perform as designed, and there is little remark about that. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that unlike saying that we should only keep lighthouses that get lots of press over the years due to frequent alterations, and cut lighthouses that just sit there while performing as designed? How is that a guideline-based argument?  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - because that's clearly saying that this particular interchange doesn't pass WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we cannot say "if we keep lighthouses we must keep interchanges". Lighthouses are major landmarks and often have realms of writing on them; interchanges are usually not and most often do not. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done a lot of lighthouse articles, but the thing is, people write books and large websites on lighthouses, and it is possible to provide a history on nearly all of them. The same can be done for a few interchanges, but not many. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. All interchanges on Autobahns are named so there is no special presumption of notability, and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 9 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.