Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Crossover Merging Interchange

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 merge to Diverging diamond interchange. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double Crossover Merging Interchange

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

This article should be deleted as its subject fails to meet the GNG. The only citation referring to DCMIs seems to be promotional and would probably fail RS. Furthermore, no interchanges of this type have been built. Above others (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is about a design for multilane freeway interchanges. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diverging diamond interchange. Doesn't appear to be notable, this is a minor variation of the Diverging diamond interchange, could easily be covered as a section in that article, and we don't need an article on every single variation of a junction type. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Colapeninsula, for the same reasons - it's a variation on the DDI. (Not to be confused with Jack Ryan.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I could find no in-depth secondary references for this type of interchange, but the Brandon Sun reference from the article contains a brief mention. There are solid primary references in the article that are non-neutral but still provide plenty of verifiable and as far as I can tell, reliable detail on the topic. The topic falls below notability threshold for a standalone article. But there is enough sourcing for Colapeninsula's recommendation of merge to Diverging diamond interchange to be the best option here; indeed the DCMI is already mentioned there in the Similar interchanges section. Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to DDI. When even not built, there's no chance in finding more references. But, the patent and HWA and similar organisations' documents are the valid secondary sources and more than one. --Hans Haase (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I do not see the differnece between this and Diverging diamond interchange. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 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.