Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Weinsberg


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not meet the requirements for notability, set out at WP:GNG. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Weinsberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable interchange. Nothing in article asserts anything notable, and searches did not turn up anything to indicate notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * During your searches did you search Google books for "Autobahnkreuz Weinsberg"? What did you think of Shamrock Hub - Logistics at the Autobahnkreuz ?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the snippet translated, "Autobahnkreuz Weinsberg is well known, an accident black spot, especially for trucks, which was why in 1993 a 6-lane expansion was classified as an 'absolute priority'." Please take a look.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈ (top/bottom) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈ (top/bottom) 15:03, 10 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". Of note, the one source is self-published, and thus fails the RS prong of the GNG test, and the other is just a compilation of statistics, and not "significant coverage".  Imzadi 1979  →   23:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "The one source"? This article has unique sources not mentioned.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are just two footnotes. Of them, the first is self-published and the second is the compilation. Does that clarify my original statement?  Imzadi 1979  →   07:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you've been marking the SPS. I was referring to the Literature (Der Bundesminister für Verkehr/Federal Minister for Transport) which has 2 references, and the Weblink section with 4 references.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A government agency wouldn't be "independent of the subject" since they own the structure in question. That doesn't help to establish notability under the GNG.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that simple. A government also represents the people at large and has many agencies and multiple layers, local, state, and national operating independently.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: as per rationales for deleting, among others, presumably, Kreuz Hannover-Buchholz and Dreieck Hamburg-Nordwest.  Quis separabit?  05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, your !vote is incomprehensible. Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Unscintillating: I am not loving the snotty, obnoxious tone, @Unscintillating. What is incomprehensible about comparing this non-notable interchange with ones that have already been deleted? Am I missing something?  Quis separabit?  05:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, glad I could set up your response. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete another routine interchange that fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This topic is covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia at Bundesautobahn 6 and Bundesautobahn 81.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also covered at Weinsberg. Unscintillating (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:Editing policy point 9 states that one way to fix problems is, "Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".  At the top of the page, the WP:Editing policy nutshell states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)."  If any editor believes that this topic is non-notable, the fix is merge.  Since WP:Notability only applies to the topic of the article, the fix in Point 9 does not apply literally in all cases of non-notability.  !votes for non-notability must also consider policies to handle the content of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Unscintillating -- you need to take it down a notch and stop hectoring other editors. You are not acting in good faith and are promoting and pushing your POV. Quis separabit?  06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So I make one edit to this AfD and I'm "hectoring"? FYI, I respect the two editors to whom I initially posted questions.  Could you explain what "hectoring" means?  I'd look it up, but I sense that you are looking forward to making another response at my expense.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I used Google maps to measure the size of Kreuz Weinsberg and came up with 2 km x 1.5 km.  Kentucky's Kennedy Interchange, which connects three interstates, is only half that size, so however the comparison is made, Kreuz Weinberg is a massive structure.  Shamrock Hub (or Cloverleaf Hub) is listed on both Google books and Google scholar.  Based on the German Wikipedia, the publisher is part of the same group that publishes Nature and Scientific American.  You can see in the quote from the snippet that the book says that this kreuz is "well-known".  I also looked at one of the galleries from the State Archives of Ludwigsburg, which again shows that this topic attracts the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N).  I don't really oppose a redirect to A81 with option to merge if that builds consensus, but this material IMO is better standalone.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when is size a measure of notability? Looking at the Kennedy Interchange, there are a handful of newspaper and magazine articles in that article. A brief search of the The Courier-Journal finds that it's been in the news, as the subject of its own newspaper articles periodically over the last decade. That's "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I'm not seeing that with the interchange nominated in this discussion however.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are of course correct that size isn't listed as a wp:notability factor, but your statement here is a contrast with your recent statement of 14 January about kreuzes and dreiecks, "These are run-of-the-mill items though in road networks...That's a lot of interchanges in a relatively small network jammed into a relatively small area." Unscintillating (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If non-notability is your issue, why are you !voting to delete when you could be !voting to merge or redirect to one of the autobahn articles? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If a subject is not notable, it does not warrant its own article. Merging could be an option, but in this case, I don't feel it's warranted, which means deletion is the appropriate end result, in my opinion.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete not really seeing how this one is notable. --Rschen7754 20:10, 16 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) 04:01, 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.