Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Stuttgart


 * 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! 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Stuttgart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As someone else has noted, this is a "non-notable interchange. Just like thousands of others." As I have noted as well on other articles recently nominated, "having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted." This was previously included in a group AfD, but the recreated article does not satisfy the GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)  Imzadi 1979   →   19:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unremarkable interchange.  Dough   4872   21:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:59, 30 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. Also, this particular interchange is clearly not unremarkable. It started out as a cloverleaf, but was later extensively modified to its present, unusual, configuration because of heavy southbound traffic, and because there had been changes in the plans for construction of Autobahns in the Stuttgart area. Those changes, and the reasons for them, are described in the German Wikipedia articles about the interchange and the three Autobahns it connects, and probably also in the German language book about the Autobahns in Baden-Württemberg cited by some of those articles (Klaus Schefold, Alois Neher (Hrsg.): 50 Jahre Autobahnen in Baden-Württemberg. Eine Dokumentation. Im Auftrag des Autobahnamtes Baden-Württemberg. Autobahnamt Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart 1986). Bahnfrend (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly does not pass WP:GNG - non notable.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - a rationale for your !vote would be nice.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a complete structure of German autobahns in the encyclopedia.  We even have separate templates for Dreieck and Kreuz.  The German Dreieck's and Kreuz's that are named always connect two Autobahns.  This means that any Dreieck or Kreuz is already known to be covered in two other topics already in existence on Wikipedia.  This is sufficient to know that there is no policy basis to delete the "topic", also known on Wikipedia as the "subject".  I would also argue that these topics satisfy our wp:notability guidelines, but analyzing this point between keep and merge becomes academic, given that there is no policy basis for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - none of which addresses the lack of notability of this particular interchange. As per WP:GNG: if the subject of an article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". None of which this article, or interchange, has demonstrated, nor have any of the !votes for "keep" provided evidence of.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which part of, "This is sufficient to know that there is no policy basis to delete the 'topic', also known on Wikipedia as the 'subject'." did you not understand? Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:Despite the fact that English Wikipedia has no guidelines for notability of "roadways" the article is notable to hard guidelines in German Wikipedia. And as you can see, the equivalent notability statement from German Wikipedia (translated into English) are very strict yet:
 * "Transport routes and structures
 * of nationally influential importance, for example an important historical trade route
 * transport interchanges
 * motorway junctions and triangles are notable if they include at least two nationally important Autobahns (in Germany mostly Autobahns with one- or two-digit Autobahn numbers) or have other outstanding features such as design or history.
 * pioneering works in transport technology
 * Autobahns and highways of the next highest category including (depending upon the country concerned, eg national or federal highways), roads built similarly to Autobahns, international connections (of national significance, not "local border traffic") or a part of a continental road system.
 * airfields with an ICAO code"
 * And somewhere here I've read that almost every notable article in another language IS also notable for English Wikipedia. Next is: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." As long Wikipedia is a collaboration project you may find the right quote about this interchange in one of many good books existing about German Autobahn interchanges and their history and architecture. And Highway interchange means only the connection between two or more Autobahnen, so it is no infinite list and these interchanges are in fact important for Europe's traffic in general. --Chandler321 (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep: I've found that according to WP:GEOROAD the German highway network is notable. The whole network! And a connection between Germans biggest kind of streets (Autobahn) in fact is part of the network and therefore notable. And as I learned: consult WP:GNG only when there are no other notability guidelines. There are also a lot of sources about German Autobahn interchanges (main part in German) we can cite. There are only about 200 connections between two or more Autobahnen, this is not that much. --Chandler321 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * road interchanges are not inherently notable. In fact many of the German ones have been recently deleted.  LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * you need to parse what WP:GEOROAD better. A highway network, if maintained by a state or national government, is "typically notable". The individual highways in those networks are also "typically notable". The guideline then goes on to state: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." It's this last part that would apply best to interchange/intersections, and it parallels what WP:GNG says for article topics. In other words, it's incumbent on those who want to keep the article to demonstrate that the subject meets the bar set by WP:GNG, and at this moment, this article still does not. There are only three sources cited, the first is self=published (so not a "reliable source" for our purposes), and the other two are just statistical references (not "significant coverage"). I should also note that the second source is being used in a way that goes against how we are supposed to use primary sources by drawing conclusions from those statistics. In short, GEOROAD doesn't justify keeping this article at this time.  Imzadi 1979  →   09:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete there is no inherent notability of interchanges. Many of the keep voters are simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE with zero evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 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.