Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg

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 keep. Sandstein 17:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Kaiserberg

(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} 00:49, 25 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 ) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an interchange between one of Germany's most important Autobahns and one of its busiest and most congested. Each of the Autobahns has an article of its own on at least 10 different Wikipedias (including English Wikipedia), and each links Germany with at least one neighbouring country. The interchange is of an unusual design, and is located within the Ruhrgebiet, which is the largest urban agglomeration in Germany. The interchange is also already the subject of standalone articles on three other Wikipedias. All of these easily ascertainable matters indicate that the interchange is clearly notable, regardless of how much non-Wikipedia coverage it may have in the English or even the German language. The fact that this article has been nominated for deletion is therefore clear evidence of systemic bias on the part of the nominator and any editor who might choose to support the nomination. It follows that the nomination is contrary to English Wikipedia policy. More generally, see also my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the discussion mentioned by DGG 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. The lack of AGF on the part of Bahnfrend is disconcerting, and patently false. There is no systemic bias, there was simply a case of an over-abundance of non-notable interchanges on German freeways. Prods and AfD's have been initiated on those appropriate in other countries as well, it is simply that there wasn't this super-abundance of non-notable articles in those countries. Simply a case of not meeting WP:GNG, nothing more. An article existing in other Wikipedia's is not a valid reason for inclusion here, as each Wikipedia has different standards of inclusion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response:

This nomination is clearly a bad faith nomination intended to pursue an editorial line persistently and unreasonably hostile to certain types of articles, namely articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany. The nomination is therefore also disruptive editing, which is grounds for an editor to be blocked or banned. For a start, the nomination falsely states that the previous nomination failed "solely for procedural reasons". In fact, the true reason for that nomination's failure was "no consensus", which is a substantive reason, not a procedural reason. What's more, to the extent that the failure was procedural, the procedural reason was (to quote one of the comments in that nomination) "lack of research done by nominator". It follows that the present nominator's statement that the previous nomination failed "solely for procedural reasons" is not only false, but would be misleading even if it were literally true.

In response to the failure of the previous nomination, the (different) nominator of this nomination (who is peddling the same disruptive line) has then nominated this particular article without doing any further research, and on the basis of another false statement, namely that the subject matter of the article is "just like thousands of others."

As to the falsity of the statement, anyone taking even a brief look at the map displayed in this article would notice immediately that the design of the interchange it describes is both complex and unique, and that the interchange is therefore accurately described in the first sentence of the lede as a spaghetti junction. The interchange, which is actually referred to by Germans as "den „Spaghetti-Knoten“" ("the Spaghetti Junction" - see the source linked below) is therefore clearly not "just like thousands of others", as the nominator must well have known all along.

As to the absence of any further research, a cursory online search using the links above reveals that the intersection is one of the busiest and most famous in the whole of Germany. For example, it is described in Bild, the biggest selling newspaper in the world published outside Asia, as both "the Spaghetti Junction" and "the cult interchange", and it also has numerous non trivial online references in various other prominent online German media sources, including Die Welt, Die Zeit (two of the most respected newspapers in Germany) and Rheinische Post (the leading newspaper in the Duisburg area). Amongst other things, the sources identify by name the two engineers who designed the interchange; they also comment that its unique design has inspired a variety of artworks and cultural activities (described in detail in the sources, eg this one - Rheinische Post), and was dictated by several factors, including the very cramped nature of the site and the configurations of the Autobahns it connects. The sources also indicate that the interchange is the end point of one of the most congested stretches of Autobahn in Germany.

The article therefore clearly passes GNG, as would be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the German online media industry, one of the most prominent in the world (and which can easily be translated into English by Google Translate for those who can't read German but who, unlike the nominator, are not affected by systemic bias).

The administrator who closed the previous, failed, nomination commented that "Maybe some [of] the less important ones could be nominated individually". The nominator has responded to that comment by nominating this article, which must surely be about one of the most important ones. Which is yet further evidence of disruptive editing.

In light of the fact that this nomination is disruptive, clearly based on no research at all, and is one of a block of similar nominations that must similarly be based on a total lack of research, the editor who nominated it is undoubtedly disruptively editing, and I therefore call on that editor to withdraw this nomination and all similar nominations immediately. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails to establish notability inline with WP:GNG. Just because this has a name does not provide an assumption of notability because every interchange in Germany is named. Other language editions of Wikipedia can have stricter or less strict inclusion requirements than us, so the presence or absence of articles there should have no bearing on whether we have an article here. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: For the reasons I have just given above in response to Onel5969, this nomination (and also the previous, failed, nomination, which I note was nominated by you) is an example of disruptive editing, and the subject matter of this article clearly passes GNG. Indeed, the fact that you describe it as failing GNG when searches using the links above very quickly establish that it passes GNG with flying colours strongly suggest that you are making that assertion without regard to whether it is true or false, which is yet another example of disruptive editing. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this particular interchange is notable. Friendly advice to Bahnfrend: Please abandon your combative attitude and assumptions of bad faith regarding other editors. You are damaging your own cause. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and nothing you mentioned comes remotely close. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that elsewhere he flat-out says that disruptive editing is vandalism - which Wikipedia policy explicitly calls out as not the case. I'm in agreement with Cullen328 here, Bahnfriend - please take a deep breath and step away for a cup of tea. Then come back and engage with a little good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being part of a large AfD closed for procedural reasons is not a reason to bind the time of AfD volunteers. This seems to be saying that the article got away, and needs to be captured and brought back to justice. Articles are created with an assumption of good faith, and do not need the permission of AfD volunteers to exist. The claim that this intersection is like "thousands of others" leads me to wonder if the nominator looked at the article. There is no explanation in the nomination for why admin tools are needed. Regarding the mention of a previous Afd for Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, one of the statements there was, "the information is clearly non-controversial and verifiable, and if an article is not warranted for a particular item, it should be merged into the corresponding larger articles rather than deleted." The nomination argument that this topic is "non-notable" does not reflect the basic concept of notability on Wikipedia...roads in Western civilization receive on-going and in-depth attention from multiple layers of government, cartographers, and news media. The existence of potholes can remove elected officials. Arguments at AfD need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike virtually all of the other Autobahn interchange AfDs, there appears to be sufficient available data here to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met by this interchange. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 2 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.