Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Nürnberg


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Nürnberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another recently created German interchange article. It's claimed to be an "important" interchange but there's nothing supporting this claim; article shows it to be a typical cloverleaf with one ramp unfolded, an extremely common configuration. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that you haven't read WP:N since before 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've worked six of these AfD's now, and i'm only just now learning the difference between a Kreuz and a Dreieck, and the fact that we have two different templates, one for each. Given that you present yourself as an expert by proposing this discussion, perhaps you can explain the difference.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete—as written, this fails the General Notability Guideline, as it does not display "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject".  Imzadi 1979  →  13:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - As the article currently sits, there is no evidence it passes WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it does.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - An absolutely ordinary interchange with no evidence of GNG being met, and no special presumption for being named - when every interchange is specially named, none of them are. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:36, 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.