Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Werl


 * 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Kreuz Werl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another in a series of unremarkable German interchanges. No significant claim of notability is made, and there is no principle that interchanges are notable by default. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another run-of-the-mill cloverleaf interchange, which are commonplace and non-notable worldwide. The photo shows that it is nicely landscaped, but pretty trees do not confer notability. The Die Welt refererence is a trivial passing mention, added recently, perhaps in an effort to prevent deletion. It is hardly encyclopedic to note that urban freeways often experience traffic jams. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  05:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  05:42, 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". Of note, the one news source is a passing mention of the subject, and not "significant coverage".  Imzadi 1979  →  13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL cloverleaf interchange that fails GNG. As all Autobahn interchanges are named, there cannot be any special presumption of notability as there would be for named interchanges in other countries, and there is no evidence of notability otherwise as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage. As Cullen and Bushranger have pointed out, completely run of the mill.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:42, 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.