Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges in Pennsylvania

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. If somebody wants to recreate the title as a redirect to List of road interchanges in the United States, that can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interchanges in Pennsylvania

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unnecessary page. Interchanges are already mentioned in each respected Route article. Other states do not have their own list of interchanges. Tinton5 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge into List of road interchanges in the United States. The fact of interchanges being mentioned in each of the two or three route articles they belong to suggests that having a separate article or list-article item about each of them is a good idea. The separate article or list-article item can have photo(s) and more info, then be linked from each of the 2 or 3 route articles. There obviously exist individually notable interchanges, and a list of them in one state can be notable, and the U.S.-wide list is obviously hugely valid (and was resoundingly supported in an AFD previously). It is an editorial matter of whether to split out a state-level list or not. I tend to think it is better to keep this split out now. --Doncram (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The list-article is substantial and includes references at the end. Coverage of several interchanges is quite extensive. Having a list-article of them probably heads of creation of separate articles for each one. It would be fair to tag the list-article for more specific inline references, though. --Doncram (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I'm not a big fan of interchange articles (I prefer to mention interchange details in the road articles), this article does serve a purpose to provide information about some of the more notable interchanges in the state that would be too little for a standalone article. Dough4872 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An awful amount of original research and self-published sources (of what few sources exist) in the article but the general consensus per WP:ROADOUTCOMES is that highway interchanges aren't inherently notable and generally (bar a few exceptions in the notability policy) should be mentioned only in the respective highway article. Also per nom that no similar article exists for other US states. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ROADOUTCOMES says nothing about interchanges. If you don't like numerous separate articles about individual interchanges, this list-article should be kept, to head off their being created separately. There is pretty clearly enough material for several of the interchanges to sustain separate articles (though the sources are either at the end of the article or need to be added). In other words, if the outcome here is "delete", I expect I or other editors would create a raft of new articles. :) --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "what links here" shows that there are a lot of inbound links to this list-article from highway articles and elsewhere. These include redirects for the following interchanges, presumably each to their specific list-item, for:

These are likely candidates to have separate articles. And, if there is a category of such interchanges in Pennsylvania, then it would be justified to have a list-article corresponding to them, to summarize about them and provide photos and redlinks and more, per wp:CLNT. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it does say: Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones unless in your opinion an exit and an interchange aren't the same thing. All of those links redirect to this article. If they were notable they would probably have at least some independent and reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um. What i said, interchanges are not covered in ROADOUTCOMES, and sure, the list-article could be tagged for more specific inline references about each of the separate interchanges that have extensive coverage. I probably won't reply more than here and once below. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are likely candidates to have separate articles, the sections they redirect to in the current article are unreferenced. I checked for sources for a couple and found no signficant coverage. If uncited statements were removed from the article we would have very little left.--Pontificalibus 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is the criteria for inclusion on this page? It says major interchanges, but doesn't describe what major means. I have a feeling that if "major" was defined, the list would be four times as long as it is. It is far better to mention the interchanges on the respective highway articles and move on. –Fredddie ™ 15:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of criteria for list-item inclusion should take place at the Talk page of the list-article. Clearly IMO some of them would be individually notable, others should be "list-item notable" (with addition of specific inline references) and maybe some need not be mentioned (though a standard would have to be defined). --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these interchanges need to be cut out of the list; some of them are simple cloverleaf interchanges between two roads. Generally, for an interchange to be included in the list I say it should have a complex nonstandard design (not a basic cloverleaf, trumpet, etc.) and involve a junction between at least three routes. If we do not want to keep this list, some of the more notable interchanges (such as Mid-County Interchange) can be split into their own articles. Dough4872 04:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not necessarily disagreeing, but to continue the thought, from "if we do not want to keep this list", then we will see creation of separate articles, justifying re-creation of the list-article. So let's just keep the list. I probably won't reply more than here and once above. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that this is a notable topic. Do we have any independent reliable discussing "interchanges in Pennsylvania" in detail? I would have no objection to the creation of a navigational list article in the future if we end up having seperate articles on several interchanges in Pennsylvania. Pontificalibus 13:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive information available, including this PennDOT site with interchange drawings for each interchange; interchanges lists and locations and other info at PA Turnpike.Com, news articles like this Bucks County local news article about a turnpike interchange opening about a $450 million project to create just one interchange with flyovers (?). With argument

“Without a doubt, a crucial project benefit besides congestion relief and mobility is the economic boost for Bucks County and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania region,” Commissioner Deon said. “The completed interchange could support thousands of new jobs in existing industries in addition to the more than 500 sustained construction jobs we’ve already seen. From a market attractiveness standpoint, we’re looking at employment growth of thousands of regional jobs along with hundreds of millions of dollars in new business sales.”

these are big projects, big dollars, addressing big costs of congestion. There are lots of hits on the general topic of "pennsylvania interchanges" and the like, and there will be lots more when searching by names for each of the individual ones, and such coverage adds up. Ping User:Pontificalibus.

Maybe I led this AFD discussion astray... let's not force the split of this article into multiple articles in order to justify recreation of the combined article. That is silly, just keep one list-article. For those who have opinions about the relatively lesser interchanges covered, take that to the Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PennDOT and Turnpike.Com, while presenting useful information, do not contribute to demonstrating notability. They are not independent sources as they're involved in operating and maintaining the roads. If such information was deemed to be sufficiently worthy of note that an independent source thought it worthwhile to publish, then that would help establish notability, but I haven't found such a source. The local news article you quote may help establish the notability of that particular interchange, although it does rely heavily on quotes from PA Turnpike officials and reads like a press release. --Pontificalibus 09:25, 10 February 2019 (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.