Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Hannover-Ost

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Hannover-Ost

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

Was part of a large AfD, which was closed solely for procedural reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers English-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchanges articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. This particular interchange links two of Germany's most important Autobahns, one of them between Denmark and Austria (also Germany's longest Autobahn) and the other between Berlin and the Ruhr (ie between Germany's two biggest population centres). Bahnfrend (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a faint claim to notability but not enough, as I see it, to justify an article on a pretty ordinary cloverleaf. Contrary to assertions there is no British precedent upon which to rely. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is not based on claims of any kind. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a complete structure of German autobahns in the encyclopedia. We even have separate templates for Dreieck and Kreuz. The German Dreieck's and Kreuz's that are named always connect two Autobahns. This means that any Dreieck or Kreuz is already known to be covered in two other topics already in existence on Wikipedia. This is sufficient to know that there is no policy basis to delete the "topic", also known on Wikipedia as the "subject". I would also argue that these topics satisfy our wp:notability guidelines, but analyzing this point between keep and merge becomes academic, given that there is no policy basis for a deletion discussion. Any decision to redirect or merge can be handled under WP:Editing policy, which might consider more than wp:notability in the decision. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - none of which addresses the lack of notability of this particular interchange. As per WP:GNG: if the subject of an article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". None of which this article, or interchange, has demonstrated, nor have any of the !votes for "keep" provided evidence of. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative to the "stand-alone article" is merger, so given that you are on record as refusing to consider merger, your objection is academic. Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC) - My apologies, Unscintillating - I corrected the format of your wikilink - hope you don't take offense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete? sst✈ 02:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈ 02:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a map, and this is just a road interchange. It's not a population centre, it's a cloverleaf. What can be written about it other than the obvious Hwy A meets Hwy B? Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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} 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily per The Bushranger, as 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)} 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.