Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can of Worms (interchange) - Wikipedia

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 Snowball keep per presence of sources. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can of Worms (interchange) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Only thing notable about the interchange is that it is so called "named" by the local community. Places of local intrest is not-notable (see WP:LOCAL for more info). Also, this interchange is not anymore notable than the millions of other interchanges. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep Not many people outside of the Piedmont Triad know about Death Valley interchange outside of North Carolina, but I get to drive it every day, lucky me. Same with the many named Malfunction Junction. And a bunch more. It needs tagging, but these types of names for interchanges is common and notable enough locally to justify inclusion. It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n. I think you are reading WP:LOCAL with blinders on. All things are local, especially politics. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or, if an article exists under the official name of the interchange (if it has one), redirect to that. See Spaghetti Junction. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we can find some reliable news sources referring to this interchange by this name.  LinguistAtLarge  01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two such sources already exist in the article. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I'll stick with my "keep".  LinguistAtLarge  01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. Has an entire article in an industry journal written about it, not to mention the no-doubt-countless articles about it in the Democrat and Chronicle archives. This is exemplary of a notable interchange, however few there may be. Powers ^T 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the keep votes still don't tell me why this interchange is notable. So far I got two WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "there is a journal written about it". I have driven through many interchanges in my life, and I still don't see why this one is so special. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't determine notability ourselves; driving through it tells you nothing about whether an encyclopedia article can be written. We must resort to what other people have written about it. In this case, that means a comprehensive article in an industry journal, a state DOT report, and a newspaper features -- and that's just what's in the article right now. I'm not saying it's an overwhelming amount of sources, but it's more than enough per our notability guidelines. If it was just the newspaper article and the state report, one could reasonably object, but the journal article clearly demonstrates that this is a topic of national interest, not just local. Powers ^T 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read my !vote again, where I clearly state It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n.. Two solid refs already exist in the article, plus other weaker refs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um no? Your vote was an example that other things exist and an interpretation of places of local interest. People who live near this interchange obviously find it notable and so people around the area would see it in a different way than other people. I drive though interchanges too but are any of them on Wikipedia? No. And why should they? Its just a spot where a couple highways come together. Also keep in mind they they aren't supposed to be "votes" but a discussion to establish consensus. Tavix (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why Dennis used the construction "!vote"; it's an acknowledgment that majority does not rule and that there isn't a very good alternative term for the recommendations we make here. Powers ^T 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't use the other examples as a justification to keep, I used them to demonstrate to you that a consensus already exists that says unusual interchanges are notable if properly sourced. The reason to keep is that It has multiple sources from reliable sources, so it passes wp:n. Regardless of any other comments, that statement is true. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of subjects that you consider to be "special". That way chaos and disaster lie. (Think about what would happen if 100,000 editors were all claiming that rule.) It is a compendium of human knowledge. If a subject has been documented in depth in multiple published works written by authors that are independent and that have reputations for fact checking and accuracy, then it satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion and can have an article. Please stop applying subjective criteria and start applying our notability criteria instead. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Do I look like I am trying to start chaos? No! If I wanted to do that, I'd be a vandal. This was a good faith nomination because I fail to see how there is notability. Here is me applying WP:N like you want me to do. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." Can someone explain to me how 2 references is "significant"? Tavix (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N specifically points out that "significant coverage" "means that sources address the subject directly in detail". It has nothing to do with the number of references. What's important is that the sources have been written about the topic, not simply mentioning this interchange in passing. Powers ^T 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established the usual way. I see no compelling reason to override our usual standards in this case. WilyD 12:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Relevant coverage in both professional journal and local press. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep went to school near there for four years, hate the intersection, but the coverage in reliable sources meet notability. WP:LOCAL mainly addresses issues where it's locally notable without coverage. This has coverage. StarM 14:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage in non-trivial sources establishes notability. 23skidoo (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2008 (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.