Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:18, 30 December 2015

Kreuz Duisburg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was de-prodded with a lengthy rationale. However, the rationale never successfully addresses the point that this particular interchange passes WP:GNG. Just another interchange like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cloverleaf. Fails GNG. These are utterly generic, cookie cutter features of modern highways worldwide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per the emerging consensus that these sorts of articles do not meet GNG and do not warrant coverage. Imzadi 1979 → 19:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is no such consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Also, I have expanded the subject article since this nomination was created. Bahnfrend (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - you pick a no-consensus due to procedure, not guidelines; another with a split; and a third where your position is in the minority. You also fail to bring up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Leverkusen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Magdeburg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Stuhr, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Alzey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Neunkirchen, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide (2nd nomination) - which is the re-do of the original one you bring up. So, 6 deleted, 1 heading for deletion, 1 split decision (at this point). And you don't see an "emerging consensus"? Hmmmm.... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Once again, you misrepresent the nature of the "no consensus". In October 2015, several editors pointed out to you and others that at least some of the then block nomination articles clearly met GNG, and that you should not nominate them all in a block, nor nominate any of them separately without doing any research on them. You waited a couple of months, and then, without notifying all (and probably without notifying any) of the editors who had opposed you, made another block nomination (made up partially of PROD nominations, all of which were clearly inappropriate) without doing any research. The fact that the block nomination was made on separate pages does not mean that it was not a block nomination. When it was then pointed out to you that you have followed the wrong procedures and that there is still no consensus, you rely upon some of the outcomes of that procedurally inappropriate block nomination to support your contention that there is an "emerging consensus". I repeat: there is no consensus. Your further contention that mine is a minority view is irrelevant - even if only one editor is able to point out either GNG or procedural inappropriateness, a nomination should fail. I say that it is both highly inappropriate and disruptive for you to nominate simultaneously so many similar articles for deletion when you have already been told not to do so, particularly when you have not done the research you have also been told to do before nominating them. How do you expect other editors to have the time to find the material for GNG when you are nominating them all of them all at once? Bahnfrend (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 **'''Keep:''' There is no such consensus.  See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg]]. Also, I have expanded the subject article since this nomination was created. [[User:Bahnfrend|Bahnfrend]] ([[User talk:Bahnfrend|talk]]) 23:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 ***'''Comment''' - you pick a no-consensus due to procedure, not guidelines; another with a split; and a third where your position is in the minority. You also fail to bring up [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Leverkusen]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Magdeburg]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Stuhr]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Alzey]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Neunkirchen]], and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide (2nd nomination)]] - which is the re-do of the original one you bring up. So, 6 deleted, 1 heading for deletion, 1 split decision (at this point). And you don't see an "emerging consensus"?  Hmmmm.... [[User:onel5969|<b><font color="#536895">Onel</font><font color="#FFB300">5969</font></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
-::::'''Response:''' Once again, you misrepresent the nature of the "no consensus".  In October 2015, several editors pointed out to you and others that at least some of the then block nomination articles clearly met GNG, and that you should not nominate them all in a block, nor nominate any of them separately without doing any research on them.  You waited a couple of months, and then, without notifying all (and probably without notifying any) of the editors who had opposed you, made another block nomination (made up partially of PROD nominations, all of which were clearly inappropriate) without doing any research.  The fact that the block nomination was made on separate pages does not mean that it was not a block nomination.  When it was then pointed out to you that you have followed the wrong procedures and that there is still no consensus, you rely upon some of the outcomes of that procedurally inappropriate block nomination to support your contention that there is an "emerging consensus".  I repeat: ''there is no consensus''.  Your further contention that mine is a minority view is irrelevant - even if only one editor is able to point out either GNG or procedural inappropriateness, a nomination should fail.  I say that it is both highly inappropriate and disruptive for you to nominate so many similar articles for deletion when you have already been told not to do so, particularly when you have not done the research you have been told to do before nominating them.  How do you expect other editors to have the time to find the material for GNG when you are nominating them all of them all at once? [[User:Bahnfrend|Bahnfrend]] ([[User talk:Bahnfrend|talk]]) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
+::::'''Response:''' Once again, you misrepresent the nature of the "no consensus".  In October 2015, several editors pointed out to you and others that at least some of the then block nomination articles clearly met GNG, and that you should not nominate them all in a block, nor nominate any of them separately without doing any research on them.  You waited a couple of months, and then, without notifying all (and probably without notifying any) of the editors who had opposed you, made another block nomination (made up partially of PROD nominations, all of which were clearly inappropriate) without doing any research.  The fact that the block nomination was made on separate pages does not mean that it was not a block nomination.  When it was then pointed out to you that you have followed the wrong procedures and that there is still no consensus, you rely upon some of the outcomes of that procedurally inappropriate block nomination to support your contention that there is an "emerging consensus".  I repeat: ''there is no consensus''.  Your further contention that mine is a minority view is irrelevant - even if only one editor is able to point out either GNG or procedural inappropriateness, a nomination should fail.  I say that it is both highly inappropriate and disruptive for you to nominate simultaneously so many similar articles for deletion when you have already been told not to do so, particularly when you have not done the research you have also been told to do before nominating them.  How do you expect other editors to have the time to find the material for GNG when you are nominating them all of them all at once? [[User:Bahnfrend|Bahnfrend]] ([[User talk:Bahnfrend|talk]]) 03:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)