Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheeler Ridge Interchange


 * 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 no consensus. Perhaps, as suggested, consensus can be found through further discussion for a merger.  Sandstein  10:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wheeler Ridge Interchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was prodded back in 2012, but contested with the rationale: "significant because of the roads that intersect here; also a truck bypass too". A news search returned zero hits, as did Newspaper.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a significant and extremely important interchange for California and arguably the western US. There are many terms besides "Wheeler Ridge Interchange" (this is the first time I've seen it termed that).  This UCLA report has very significant analysis of the interchange (page 32) and this book appears to go into construction detail.--Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That UCLA report is a master's thesis in statistics. Even putting aside the question of whether a master's thesis could possibly be a WP:RS, it's not about the interchange in any real way.  The subject is statistics.  The interchange traffic data was just used because it was a conveniently available dataset on which to demonstrate mastery of statistical techniques.  The second reference isn't a book at all; it's an environmental impact statement.  Things don't become notable because they get included in an environmental impact statement.   If this is the best we can do in the way of sources, it's a clear delete -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep—unlike subjects of the batch of German interchange articles that have been created as of late, interchanges in the US are typically not named. The few that have actual names are an indication of notability, and further an indication that sources should exist, which may or may not be online.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Despite having a name, the interchange is unremarkable and any details about it can be covered in the I-5 and CA 99 articles. An interchange having a name does not automatically indicate notability, every interchange along the Pennsylvania Turnpike has a name and most of them are simply trumpet interchanges with a toll booth connecting to the cross road.  Dough   4872   23:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having a name does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable fork in the road, a search for sources brought back little more than trivial passing mentions such as this. I checked one source given by by Oakshade and the reference to the interchange is, in full, "Wheeler Ridge interchange is in Kern County where State Route 99 ends and merges with Interstate 5 and it is in the north of Smokey Bear interchange". Spaghetti Junction it ain't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you speaking of this reference in which"Wheeler Ridge interchange is in Kern County where State Route 99 ends and merges with Interstate 5 and it is in the north of Smokey Bear interchange" is simply an introduction and goes into explicit multi-page detail detail of traffic patterns and analysis? --Oakshade (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does go into great detail, but it appears to be more concerned with the freeway network in general, rather than this specific junction. In that case a merge / redirect may be more appropriate; I'm just not sure where. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole book is about the freeway network in general, but there is multi-page detail and analysis of specifically this interchange.--Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Oakshade, and because it is a significant interchange, coverage is necessary to a full understanding of that section of Interstate 5, and enough sourceable detail exists to justify this as a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, many interchanges have names and are not notable for them. But this is neither a German interchange or a Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange, and therefore the blanket "named interchange, not unique, not notable" logic can't be applied. Looking at everything I think this can be shown to squeak past GNG barely, and 'barely' is all that is needed. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the sources listed by Oakshade this interchange received significant coverage in multiple sources. Although not a great argument, Imzadi is an expert on WP road articles. -  t u coxn \talk 19:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No consensus - Searching for "Wheeler Ridge Interchange," I found one reference, 'Major Development Plans Announced by Tejon Ranch Co.,' Business Wire, December 16, 1997, referring to "Laval/Wheeler Ridge Road interchange." From the above, it appears to be an imporatnt interchange, so very likely there's write ups on it. However, the likely problem here is the "Wheeler Ridge Interchange" name of the article. That is to say, the topic may be notable, but the article title is messing with the AfD. There's no writeups on Wheeler Ridge Interchange, so we are not able to fine info on the topic here at AfD. Suggestion: Close as no consensus, change the title if the closer can find a better one, or close suggesting the name of the article be changed to reflect the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Further: I Googled "Laval/Wheeler Ridge Road interchange". That brings in more hits and appears to be the correct name for the interchange per http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/factsheets/docs/i5lavalroad.pdf. I suggest the close rename the article Laval/Wheeler Ridge Road interchange and close as no consensus to allow a relisting at AfD -- with the correct name of the topic -- if needed. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Tricky issue. Normally subjects like this one – a minor component of a notable entity which do not deserve an article on their own – are merged and redirected to master. Here, however, we are having a road interchange, so we are talking about two masters. Can't merge to two, possibly. I would then suggest merge and redirect into either Interstate 5 or CA 99, where it could occupy a subheading, and make sure that the term is clearly cross-linked between the two. kashmiri  TALK  21:06, 29 December 2015 (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.