Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg

Kreuz Duisburg

Kreuz Duisburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

I'm sorry, who are you again to be telling other editors what to do and what not to do? Sorry. Your argument doesn't really hold water. And might I suggest at this point you WP:DROPTHESTICK, which several other editors have asked you to do. You really need to read more carefully, and then formulate your arguments more fully. First, I was not involved in the initial block AfD (as you call it) at all. Didn't nominate the non-notable interchanges, didn't join the discussion. Stumbled on the non-notable interchanges all by my lonesome. Second, it was not my contention that there was "emerging consensus", that was another editor's viewpoint. When you disregard that, you get called to the woodshed, showing the overwhelming consensus in 6 other AfD discussions on this same topic. So when you get so many of the facts incorrect, its difficult to listen to anything else you have to say. You shouting from the rooftops that you are right does not make you so. Your lack of civility, and personal attacks are simply becoming more frantic and disconcerting. Again, please drop the stick. And, yes, I am still awaiting for your apology. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Those references that you added in the "History" section are trivial passing mentions that devote no significant coverage whatsoever to this interchange. Longest beer table? Really? The English metaphor is "thin soup" and I bet German has something similar. I have participated in thousands of AfD debates and group (or block) nominations are common. There is nothing at all unusual or improper about onel5969's behavior. Please drop your combative attitude, Bahnfrend. It is unseemly and hurts your cause rather than helping it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Response: This group nomination concerns a group of articles about subject matter located outside the Anglosphere and considered by more than one other Wikipedia to be notable. I have found other material about this interchange and other interchanges within that group. However, as I do not have unlimited time to edit wikipedia, I do not have enough time to research GNG and add content to all of the articles that have been nominated for deletion, and no editor could reasonably be expected to do so within the applicable time limits. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment - and those tidbits you've added to several of the articles add nothing towards the notability of any of those articles. Nice effort, though. Doesn't change the fact that none of them pass WP:GNG. Can't help it if other wikis have lower standards than the English Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Response: You're the nominator, so you're not a disinterested assessor of whether they pass GNG or not. One editor has already accepted that my edits to Kreuz Kaiserberg indicate notability, which puts paid to your view that they all fail. As I don't claim to have finished expanding any of the articles, not even that one, it matters little what you think about what I've done so far. I repeat: I do not have enough time to research GNG and add content to all of the articles that have been nominated for deletion, and no editor could reasonably be expected to do so within the applicable time limits. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment - actually, that editor didn't say that. They did say they felt that particular interchange was notable, but made no mention of your recent edits. They've also commented on several other of the interchanges you've engaged on as to how they are not notable. And that's one of about 12 editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Further response to Cullen328: My further research today has revealed, amongst other things, that the interchange includes a sculpture described in the sources as a symbol of Duisburg. I have expanded the article further to include the further information, which I guess thickens the soup. Bahnfrend (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep  This particular case is a named interchange with daily traffic of 160,000, known for its association with the division of Germany during the cold war.  This appears to be a perfectly good article: a unique and interesting topic, the topic fits well in our missing coverage, and it is cited to be verifiable.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep: And please also watch the discussion on WikiProjects Highways page, --Chandler321 (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - a rationale for keeping this particular interchange would be nice. Your comments on the highway page are nice, but generic, and do not speak to the concept of the notability of individual interchanges. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep Well-sourced. Fulfills WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the above !vote is not visible.  Since it cites "WP:IAR", it is the only !votes on this page to cite a policy by using "WP:".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)