Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Chemnitz

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 no consensus. I'd also remind editors participating in AFD not to engage in personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz Chemnitz[edit]

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

Was part of a blanket AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, which was closed as no consensus for procedural reasons. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of this and all similar articles: in Germany, only Autobahn intersections are named - see also my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Additionally, the text of this article says that the subject interchange was previously part of a notable German racing track, the Sachsenring. That is a reason to conclude that this particular interchange is not like thousands of others. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The racetrack-related history can be covered in the racetrack unless there is "significant covered in reliable sources independent of the subject" (WP:GNG) about this interchange. Imzadi 1979 → 19:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My further researches indicate that the racetrack was actually a standalone facility. There's even a standalone article in German Wikipedia about the racetrack (de:Autobahnschere Chemnitz). That article is linked to a number of reliable sources, including a video of one of the races posted on YouTube by the Chemnitz Film Archive. It goes without saying that those sources also establish notability of the interchange itself. Bahnfrend (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bahnfrend, you should have said, "It goes without saying that those sources also establish notability of the [racetrack] itself". Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 13 January 2016 (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 ) 04:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The first footnote appears to be a SPS, and the second isn't enough to carry notability. These are both the same sources as in the German version of the article. I agree that we should welcome such attempts, but they have to meet GNG. Non-English subject do not get a deviation from that principle. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: You're confusing notability of the subject matter with verifiability of the content of the article. These are two different issues. In the case of Kreuz Chemnitz, notability can be confirmed by a Google maps search (Google maps is a clearly independent reliable source). If the subject matter is notable, then there can be an article about it. As far as verifiability of content is concerned, a lack of sources and references is a recognised problem with translation of German Wikipedia articles into English, because German Wikipedia articles are typically much less comprehensively sourced and referenced than English Wikipedia articles created from scratch. See Wikipedia:Translation/German/Translation advice#Content issues. The solution to this problem is not to delete the whole article, but, rather, either to be pragmatic and leave the content in the article as is (on the basis that German Wikipedia is generally pretty accurate), or be fundamentalist (and thereby largely defeat the purpose of translating the article in the first place) and delete the unsourced content, but not the whole article. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't use maps alone to establish notability, and I think you need to read WP:GNG. We need "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and being listed on a map fails the first prong because that would be a mere mention, not "significant coverage". Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response: I disagree, but even if you're correct, your comment indicates only that the English Wikipedia guidelines for notability of roadways are inadequate. See my new thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - First, 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. Second, not sure what Bahnfrend is disagreeing with, since Imzadil is quoting guidelines. But if they feel that English Wikipedia's current guidelines ae "inadequate", they need to bring that up on the talk page of the notability guidelines. Not here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Further response: This is one of a group of disruptive nominations for deletion by a small number of systemically biased editors who have a fixed agenda of wanting all articles about Autobahn interchanges in Germany to be deleted, even though they have carried out no research into whether the subjects of the articles pass WP:GNG or not, and are therefore contending that they fail GNG without regard to whether that contention is true or false. For that reason, this nomination, like all disruptive editing, should be treated as vandalism, and should be withdrawn. See also my more detailed comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kreuz Kaiserberg. Bahnfrend (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - simply incorrect. And further evidence that Bahnfrend is lacking in AGF. I've nominated interchange articles from several countries, not simply Germany. It's simply that Germany had a plethora of non-notable interchanges which had articles, which the other countries did not. Their use of the term disruptive is a clear indication they don't have a clear grasp of the concept. If I wanted all interchanges in Germany gone, why did I not nominate all the others I've passed over? Hmmm. An apology seems warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Bahnfriend: please remember that WP:NOTVAND explicitly states that "disruptive editing" is not vandalism. Even if there was disruptive editing here, your assertion is against Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a WP:BIAS issue; the issue here is that in Germany, every interechange on the Autobahn (Interstate/Motorway) is named. Unlike in other countries, therefore, the fact that an interchange is named is not prima facie evidence of notability. There is no evidence here of any disruption, and there is insufficient evidence that WP:GNG is met by this interechange. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Of course it's a WP:BIAS issue. Essentially what the deletionists, including you, are saying amounts to this: "I believe that the standard unnamed cloverleaf interchange near my home town of Nowheresville, USA, is not notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point), and that therefore the interchange the subject of this article cannot be notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point either). So this article must be deleted." Such a statement is really no different from "I believe that the nondescript church in my home town of Nowheresville, USA, is not notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point), and that therefore the subject matter of Dresden Cathedral cannot be notable (even though I haven't bothered to research that point either). So the Dresden Cathedral article must be deleted."

If you can be bothered to visit the Dresden Cathedral article, you will note that it has only one cited source, namely a German language book about the buildings of old Dresden. But no editor of English Wikipedia would ever seriously suggest that that article be deleted. Now let me tell you why the subject matter of Kreuz Chemnitz is notable, apart from the fact that it has a name, and is therefore, like Dresden Cathedral, a large, recognised geographical feature.

Kreuz Chemnitz was opened in 1939, and is, for that reason, one of the oldest interchanges between two or more freeways in Germany and indeed the world. It was constructed as part of the early stages of the Autobahn between Berlin, the capital and most populous city in Germany, and Munich, the capital of Bavaria and third most populous city in Germany. The Reichsautobahn project of which it was part was an important strategic and propaganda exercise by Adolf Hitler (see, eg, Reichsautobahn#Monumental function), and was a major element of his preparations for starting World War II.

Like all German Autobahns built right to this very day, the Berlin to Munich Autobahn was, and its interchanges were, engineered, built, and is/are operated, not just as a mode of transport, but also as a form of landscape architecture, because Germans actually care about things like that. So, for example, as is pointed out in the caption to the very first photo in the Reichsautobahn article, oak trees were deliberately retained in the median of the Berlin to Munich Autobahn when it was built in the 1930s (see also the detailed comments in Reichsautobahn#Aesthetics). Last year, a respected academic architectural writer who lives in Erfurt (150 km (93 mi) from Chemnitz) released a 440 page book Reichsautobahnen in Mitteldeutschland ("Reichsautobahns in Central Germany"), which describes the history of the Reichsautobahn project in that area, including the Berlin to Munich Autobahn, between 1933 and 1943. Some indication of the reliability of this source can be gleaned from the fact that the book was the subject of launch events at a number of important museums in central Germany, including the Museum for Saxon Vehicles in Chemnitz, and that the launch events were reported in reliable local media (eg this article). As Kreuz Chemnitz was one of the most important structures built as part of the Berlin to Munich Autobahn, there can be no doubt that it is described in the book. In any event, so much is clear from one of the online sources I have just cited. Thus, all I would need to do to debunk the deletionists in relation to this particular article (and all other articles about the Reichsautobahn interchanges between two or more Autobahns in central Germany) is add the book and the online sources I have just cited to the references section of the article, which will then become even better sourced than the Dresden Cathedral article. I will do that shortly. (Incidentally, the book is already one of the sources cited in the German Wikipedia Reichsautobahn article, so it is by no means difficult to find.)

But there's actually even more of a basis than that to conclude that the Kreuz Chemnitz article should be kept. In its original form, the interchange was a triangle interchange. Its further development was delayed by the post-War division of Germany, and it is therefore an interesting example of the profound effect of the Cold War on Europe in general and Germany in particular. In the 1950s, the interchange, unlike any other freeway interchange of which I am aware, was used as as a racetrack to stage motorsport events for both cars and motorbikes. Early this century, the authorities decided to transform it into a four way interchange as part of the construction of a new Autobahn from Chemnitz to Leipzig. That decision was then the subject of a major court challenge by nearby landowners, but in a judgment published here and containing detailed information about the local landscape, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, sitting at its headquarters in Leipzig, dismissed the challenge. Reconstruction of the interchange then went ahead. The court's judgment even notes one of the points I have made above, namely that Autobahn construction in Germany is an exercise in landscape design - the challenge the court rejected was to the acquisition of land for the purpose of landscaping. Consistently with the general philosophy of German Autobahn engineering, the expanded interchange includes an 8 m x 8 m depiction of the Coat of arms of Saxony between the Hof-Dresden slip roads - so large that it is clearly visible here on the satellite version of Google Maps.

The as-yet-uncited material in the previous paragraph was obtained from page 5 of this reliable source, which I will also shortly add to the article.

In the last few days, I have done some detailed research into only three of the German Autobahn interchange articles presently proposed for deletion. My researches have indicated that all three of them are clearly notable to an editor who actually knows something about German Autobahns, and who knows where to look for appropriate reliable sources. So, and contrary to what you say in your systemically biased post, all of the articles about interchanges between two or more German Autobahns should be presumed to be about notable subjects. Now I have a request. Why don't you and your fellow deletionists do English Wikipedia a favour, and confine your editing and comments on deletion proposals to subject matter you actually know something about? That way, you and your fellow deletionists wouldn't be wasting so much of the valuable time of other editors, such as the time that I would otherwise have been devoting to my wife, three children and other family members over these Christmas holidays. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith and not make personal attacks on other editors. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:47, 4 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) 02:40, 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} 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these Kreuz's and Dreieck's are a valuable addition to our existing Autobahn coverage, fully supported by our policy. Sorry, but you've been since last August chasing a problem which doesn't exist and driven off a valuable content contributor in so doing. There is a case with some or many of these articles for merging them temporarily to one of the two related Autobahn articles, until the time that Bahnfriend et al has had time to refine them, but because you are on record as rejecting merger, you've not been able to participate in that discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you resort to an uncivil, personal attack, with addressing the lack of notability of the interchange. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my words were not spoken with disrespect. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating does not need to address the notability of this interchange. Its notability is well established by my comments above, complete with links to reliable sources. But at the moment, I do not have the time to add content to this or the other articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, but facts, not comments establish notability. Something which none of the keep !votes have addressed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — The kind of information that's probably better represented with a table and a link to a map. For comparison, British and Irish motorway articles don't have separate articles on individual junctions. Blythwood (talk) 08:09, 13 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.