Deletion of Judge Harry Pregerson Interchange

Comment: The nom's main stated rationale is the naming of the topic ("never heard this name; nobody uses it") which has little to do with notability.   A notable topic having an obscure official name doesn't make it non-notable.  This certainly is a remarkable interchange and this is based on |reliable sources.  Besides the Federal Highway Administration design award lending to notability, http://books.google.com/books?id=oo15wuc59swC&dq=105+harbor+freeway+105+interchange&source=gbs_navlinks_s this book calls this interchange, "One of the most esthetically pleasing examples of freeway design," CBS affiliate KGPE calls it "California's - Craziest Intersection.." http://community.cbs47.tv/blogs/kenmalloy/archive/2011/04/13/4458275.aspx
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The nomination rationale basically amounts to "I've never heard of it and I'm an authority on the subject, so it needs to go." I am, however, more convinced by Imzadi's argument regarding the significance of the subject's biggest claim to notability. I'm not going to lie; I don't exactly have an argument for keeping this article that wouldn't amount to one of the many |ATA, and if I were an uninvolved user stumbling across this AfD I certainly wouldn't !vote to keep it. I started this article before I ever became involved at AfD, and I know a lot more about Wikipedia policies now than I did then. I'll keep looking for more sources, etc. to demonstrate notability if I have the time before this AfD period is over, but I won't exactly throw a fit if this ends up getting deleted. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)