Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Uckermark


 * 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! 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Uckermark

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

If something can be notable for not being used frequently, this would qualify. If not, then this is a pretty non-notable interchange. Be more than happy to withdraw this nomination if consensus that being the least used is noteworthy.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 18:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * delete no claim to notability other than by being an interchange, which isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 3 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  →  13:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Redirect to Bundesautobahn 11 with Template:R with possibilities 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, and this one policy requirement refutes each of the above delete arguments or pseudo-arguments.  The most that policy allows with a consensus of non-notability is a full merge to one of the target articles.  (This would be before consideration of WP:DUE and WP:V.)  The argument that this topic fails either WP:N or WP:GNG carries little weight; first since no attempt has been made above to determine if GNG sources exist; and second because these Kreuz's and Dreieck's satisfy the fundamental purpose of notability, which is to limit topics to those described in the nutshell as "attracts the attention of the world at large".  Major roads in Western civilization attract ongoing daily attention from multiple layers of government and news media, as well as the general public.  Relatively minor road defects, potholes, can remove politicians from office.  Editors bringing articles like this to AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT.  This article seems to satisfy WP:V, but the quality of the writing is a draft.  Another alternative here would be to move the article to Draft space and change the resulting redirect to Bundesautobahn 11.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Major roads attract attention. Major interchanges do not. Autobahns are inherently notable as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. Interchanges between notable Autobahns do not inherit that notability. Otherwise I could write an article on the ridiculously non-notable interchange between I-75 and I-10 not too far from here and crush AfD arguments on it with "WP:ITEXISTS". - The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange; 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 04:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled to see you still quoting WP:RUNOFTHEMILL after I quoted to you what it says about roads. Did you read what I reported?  It says that we don't need road coverage of every square mile of cities including cul-de-sacs.  It also makes the rather interesting point rarely seen on Wikipedia that one reason to avoid making masses of road articles is that we don't have the editors to maintain such articles.  In comparison, the 200 German Kreuz's and Dreieck's are the very opposite of run-of-the mill.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - and I'm surprised that you maintain an argument which was already discredited at another AfD.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:34, 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.