Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oldenburg-Ost


 * 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. As per the policies and regulations set by the community at-large, notability is known to be not inherited. Any information about named items attached to another subject are to be retained in the parent article (in this case the roads that form the intersection), until they are shown to have formed enough independent notability. Which, in this case, has not happened. Therefore, the article is found to not meet the requirements of our notability policy at this time. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Oldenburg-Ost

 * – ( 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)
 * Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →  17:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by the two systemically biased editors above, who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they are all "non-notable" without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason alone, this nomination should be withdrawn or should fail.  See also my more detailed comments at Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg.


 * As I have observed in a recent comment in Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz, all German Autobahns and their interchanges are engineered, built, and operated, not just as a mode of transport, but also as a form of landscape architecture, and that fact is the subject of detailed discussion in the Reichsautobahn article. Thus, articles about interchanges between two or more German Autobahns (such as this one) should be presumed to be of (at least) architectural interest and therefore notable, even if no similar presumption can be made about interchanges in other countries (which, as far as aesthetics are concerned, have not followed the German model (see Reichsautobahn)).


 * In August 2015, the two editors above engineered the deletion of a large number of similar articles on the (alleged) basis (unsupported by any research) that their subject matters were not notable, even though only one of those articles had been tagged for deletion, and therefore reasonable notice had not been given to other editors about the proposed deletions of the other ones. See Articles for deletion/Dreieck Potsdam.  After the two editors above had failed, due to "no consensus" (see Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide), in an attempt in October 2015 to have a second group of similar articles deleted on the same basis (again unsuppported by any research), one of the above editors later tagged a third group of similar articles, including this one, with WP:PROD tags, which "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".  Meanwhile, a yet another group of similar articles was tagged with an AFD tag linking to an AFD page making a false statement (and one that would have been misleading even if literally true) about the reason for the failure of the October 2015 attempt.  Additionally, neither of the above editors has denied my contention, made before this nomination was made, that their unqualified assertions of non-notability of these articles are not based on any research and are therefore being made without regard to whether those assertions are true or false.  These matters alone are sufficient to justify the inference that their move (similarly unsupported by any research) to have this article deleted is being done in bad faith, and that is yet another reason why it should fail.   Bahnfrend (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment nothing in the lengthy rant above goes to show that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Searches show only trivial or routine mentions of the interchange.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is like several other recent AfDs I have seen.  I think that a force behind the view to deletion is that the topic is not like other articles on Wikipedia.  This argument is conjoined with an argument that such coverage is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (that the topic is like thousands of others), implying that we already have too many other articles like it on Wikipedia.  The two ideas are mutually opposed.  I recall only one other intersection on Wikipedia, one in Iran that I tried to get deleted.  As the above "rant" explains, each of these autobahn interchanges are expensive, well-researched, well-maintained, engineering marvels documented by multiple cartographers, and well-known to news media and the public at large.  WP:Notability is easily shown as I have done at other similar AfDs, but focusing on wp:notability, as I have also said at these other AfDs, misses the point.  It doesn't matter were this topic to be non-notable, as the "penalty" for non-notability of merge-able material; as per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:Editing policy; is merger.  The key questions to be considered here are WP:V and WP:NOT.  I've already in a limited way addressed WP:NOT, and turn to WP:V.  I see 10 references in the article, being used to make 11 citations.  With this quick review, all looks to be in order, and the article has a map and a picture.  In my opinion, this work is a valuable addition to our corpus.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Going over this run of articles, all created by the same person from what I can see and many of them in broken mixes of English and German, the big problem continues to be the unsupportable assertion that all of these are notable as a general principle. If that principle existed, we wouldn't be going through this but it doesn't exist. From what I can see, there may be as many of these stubbish German articles as there are of all other highway interchanges put together; there is no guideline which says that highway interchanges are notable by default. And so once again we have a pretty ordinary cloverleaf with no claim that it is somehow remarkable. It would have been far less disruptive to pick out specific exceptions whose notability could be demonstrated, but instead we're having to go to the mat on every article over a nonexistent guideline. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, WP:N says, "Article content does not determine notability". WP:Editing policy says, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)."  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep another example of fine German engineering, very encyclopedicJulie2016 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My impression too. German engineering of these roads seems to be a cut above what we know in the US, and they were doing what we call interstate highways 20 years earlier.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid argument based on policies or guidelines. This is very simple: does it meet the notability criteria or not? The answer, which has yet to have a valid argument put forward to contradict it, is no.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that you have yet to make an argument for deletion, so your own nomination seems to be indistinguishable from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One reason for this is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.  If you've done GNG analysis, if you show your work other people can duplicate your search results.  Have you looked at all of the sources in the article?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry you're having so much trouble understanding WP:GNG, which has been cited numerous times, and has been the overriding factor in dozens of these non-notable interchanges being deleted.  Onel 5969  TT me 10:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry that you think I'm having difficulty in understanding our policies and guidelines. I asked you a policy question at one of the AfDs, and you didn't respond.  You know by now that as per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, and given the possibility of redirection, non-notability is not a valid policy-based deletion argument, yet you've gone back to mass nominations of Autobahn intersections where redirection will be possible to one of the Autobahns.  Your reference to other AfDs seems to be an assertion that your WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations have not been challenged in those AfD closes.  Here is text from WP:VAGUEWAVE, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." This article has doubled in size since your nomination.  Have you looked at all of the sources in the article?  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the sources. The question is, have you? One is self published, the main one is not an independent source, and the others a simple mentions. It's really time you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your arguments on these AfDs have pretty much been completely discounted at this point. And since I did describe the reasons it does not pass WP:GNG, so your above comment regarding Vaguewave is incorrect, at best.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I analyzed the verifiability of the sources in my !vote. Was there any specific source that you want me to review?  Your entire nomination rationale for deletion was, "No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG.".  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  So no, I don't at all agree that this is not a WP:VAGUEWAVE.  I treat you with respect and make policy based arguments, and I often spend considerable amounts of time in preparing responses.  I would appreciate the same in return.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 12 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. Relisting comment: I do not find the keep arguments convincing enough to close this as "no consensus"; let us have some more opinions on whether the references are substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GEOROAD and due to autobahns (Bundesautobahnen) classification.--<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 05:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - you do understand it's not a road, right? Georoad actually doesn't mention interchanges.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 10:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you saying it's a walkway? That no cars are allowed? Because according to the article it's a cloverleaf interchange between two Autobahns and usually (perhaps not always?) that involves a road.


 * I do not understand why deletionists get so mad that an article they believe must be deleted might possibly not be deleted. Is it because they hate the creator of the article? Whelp, oftentimes that's actually correct. Do they just enjoy running off new editors? Perhaps. Will they win the lotto? Doubtful. Are they getting angry over nothing? Yep!!! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 16:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, and the fact that certain roads are generally considered notable doesn't imply that their intersections are notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Essays are not rules! fyi - Believe it (or not) I spent a bit of time checking into the evidence before making my decision. --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 07:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about inheriting notability. If you want to explain why autobahns intersected are not autobahns, then do the analysis and advance the discussion.  Anyone looking at a map of either a Dreieck or a Kreuz will see two autobahns.  My above post at 00:02, 11 January 2016 uses "roads" as the common language to describe the object.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Inherited notability is precisely the argument being used by MurderByDeletionism. Neither you, nor they, nor the other keep !vote, have addressed the lack of notability of this interchange.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to see we have a mind reader among us! Guess what I'm thinking now! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 16:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, nothing was said about inherited notability. It is an argument called a straw man.  This could be an interesting and relevant discussion with some analysis to explain multiple viewpoints.  As it stands right now, notability seems to be shown for this topic by WP:GEOROAD.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An interchange is not the same thing as a highway, and the GEOROAD guideline addresses highways. The presumption is that that articles can be built about major highways which demonstrate notability because the sources are as a rule available which show notability. Personally I think this tends to be pushing matters and that the presumption is often not played out in practice, but be that as it may, too many people are objecting in these AFD discussions that the presumption of notability for highways does not extend to (or in other words, is not inherited from) the interchanges which are among their components. A presumption about which there is no consensus cannot be taken as a guideline; the interchange articles have to satisfy notability the old-fashioned way. The persistent failure to assert notability within the articles or to provide more than basic stats is strong evidence that there is no basis for a principle that highway-to-highway interchanges should be considered to be notable by default. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you (and the other deletionists) have already achieved your goal of running off another content creator so congrats! --<i style="color:#B00000; font-family:Casual;">MurderByDeletionism</i><sup style="color:black;">"bang!" 18:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your initial argument to the effect that "An autobahn interchange is not the same thing as a autobahn", uses logic that would also be saying, "An autobahn interchange is not the same thing as two autobahns.", yet it is proper to say "An autobahn interchange is two or more autobahns." It is still not clear here whether the concept of "autobahn" is somehow limited to long numbered roads as opposed to "Bundesautobahnen" classification. The wording in WP:GEOROAD says "International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable."  I think this means that WP:GEOROAD says that kreuzes and dreiecks are typically wp:notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An autobahn exchange is not two autobahns any more than a bend is two ropes. Nor is an interchange a road network. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Networks contain both the long numbered roads and their intersections. Have you looked at Bundesautobahn 29?  Kreuz Oldenburg-Ost and Bundesautobahn 29 are both elements of the same object.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment See WP:N, which states, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."  Also see, WP:N, which also dissociates wp:notability from content.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue here, again and again, is that nobody defending these articles is making any attempt to show notability. I've just made another quick search of things, and what I'm finding are routine traffic reporting and highway repairs material, and what are essentially copies of this article or passing references in articles about the intersecting autobahns. I don't see my obligations as going beyond that, and in any case the argument always comes back to "we presume autobahns to be notable, so interchanges between them are notable too." That is not a demonstration of notability. The position that has prevailed on US interchanges has been that only a very few notorious interchanges (notoriety being in its way a form of notability) merit articles, and the only argument presented that isn't a failed analogy with the US situation is that autobahn interchanges have names, whereas US interchanges are at best numbered. I just don't see how this variation in naming creates notability, and every other positive argument has been based not on the actual notability of any individual interchange, but on some consistently rejected notion that as a class all these interchanges to be presumed notable even though so far not a single one has been proven notable on its own. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, If wp:notability is your concern, why aren't you !voting to merge? You want to delete an article with 10 references, 11 citations, and a detail map; while leaving A 29, which has zero citations, one external link, and a location map.  Merge satisfies your wp:notability viewpoint, but the effect of your current !vote inexplicably puts a hole in the encyclopedia.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete yet another run of the mill interchange that fails WP:GNG. there is no inherent notability of interchanges. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article as-written doesn't demonstrate that WP:GNG is met, but given the size of the project, its impact on the local area, and the creation of the associated artificial lake, it seems very likely that it was covered by reliable sources at the time when it was built. WP:GEOROAD doesn't explicitly mention intersections but it seems like a reasonable position to hold that a major named intersection between two notable highways would be subject to the same reasoning that makes the highways themselves presumptively notable. There is also the possibility of a cultural mismatch here; German editors (and readers) may have a completely different view of the notability of an intersection from the US-based editors who dominate these discussions, based on genuine historical and geographical factors. The tendency to name intersections and make them into parks does rather suggest that this is the case. All in all, I don't think it is possible to say that there is a clear "policy" or "precedent" argument here for either keeping or deleting, but I prefer the "keep" argument on the basis that the GNG could almost certainly be met if someone spent the time pouring over German newspaper archives from the late 70s. <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">Thparkth (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As with the other generic interchange articles, my view on this remains: On the English Wikipedia, 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) 03:59, 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.