Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Heidelberg

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. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Heidelberg

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

Contested prod. One of a number of non-notable interchanges, which some feel are notable simply because they are named. No evidence of coming close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as written, this fails to meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 17:46, 27 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. The text of this article says (probably accurately) that this interchange was opened in 1937, which, if true, would make it unusually, old, even for Germany, and possibly the oldest in southern Germany. Bahnfrend (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim of notability. Find someone saying it is remarkably old and we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to Bundesautobahn 5 with Template:R with possibilities. Each Kreuz and Dreieck connects two Autobahns, and we have good coverage of the Autobahns. There is no policy basic to delete at AfD a topic already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. It seems that the evidence for the claims that the topic fails WP:GNG have been left as an exercise to the reader. Anyway, WP:Notability here is not a problem, as this is a massive engineering and architectural project supported by multiple layers of government and well-known to cartographers, news media, and the general public. AfDs on topics such as these need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "well-known" is not a criterion for inclusion. Roads at the federal and state/provinicial level are notable, by long-time consensus. Their intersections do not inherit notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:26, 9 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} 09:26, 9 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.