Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malfunction Junction

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 redirect to Interchange (road). MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction Junction

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

Barely cited (only one non-dead link, and it's just referring to it as a nickname for one of the many examples. This is almost entirely original research on various highway sections that people find annoying to drive on. This makes it possibly close to inherently POV, with such statements as "seemingly endless maze of ramps" and the like. Against the current (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—AfD isn't article cleanup. Please note that like Spaghetti Bowl (transportation), there are interchanges given the "Malfunction Junction" nickname. Imzadi 1979 → 22:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. This article makes me uncomfortable with all the OR. Still thinking about this. --Rs chen 7754 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Imzadi1979. Dough 48 72 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its a problematic article. Is it meant to be a list of interchanges that have been called 'malfunction junction', a general list of interchanges that confuse people or snarl up a lot (in which case I think a better term than a bit of journalese, however snappy, should be found) or an article on the junction in Florida which spawned the phrase?TheLongTone (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article as it stands is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you have multiple things with the same name, they should have different articles (see WP:NOTDICT) - you don't cover Columbia, SC and Columbia, MO in the same article, so why would you cover Malfunction Junction, AL and Malfunction Junction, CA in the same article? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is essentially a list article, and might be legitiamte as such, contrary to what Colapeninsula says, but what should (and should not) be included seems to be a matter ofpersonal opinion, which we call WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - at this point, there's nothing worth keeping that isn't original research. Should someone come up with an article that meets Wikipedia guidelines, it can be recreated. --Rs chen 7754 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rschen7754. Deletion is not eternal.--Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially a list of junctions we don't have articles on, nor are likely to, with a couple of exceptions which are listed without a source to verify that the term has been used to describe them as 'malfunction junction'. The article appears to be largely WP:OR. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interchange (road), but I would caution that a copy-and-paste merge is not what I want to see happen. I'm sure we can make a decent, cited paragraph out of this article. –Fredddie ™ 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is important where ans why accidents happen. It is also important why and what junctions have problems but I strongly recommend to use references! I am still missing capacity details on articles about road juncions. --Hans Haase (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - far too much WP:OR and similar nonsense in there, but it could be a valid article if redone from scratch with proper referencing. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2013 (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.