Deletion of Dreieck Werder

Comment: does not meet the bar set by : "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Of the two sources in place, one is |self-published, thus failing the RS prong of the GNG test, and the other is just statistics, failing the "significant coverage" prong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SPS)

Comment: not when the only content in the article is only either routine (it's situated here, it's existence since X, it connects a & b) or trivial (it used to be named Y). As it stands, the article contains nothing to show the interchange is notable, in fact, there's no assertion of notability in the article at all. If this interchange was a person, company or event, it could have been A7'd. Per : "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTEVERYTHING)