Talk:Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive

Notability
I have added the notability template to this article. Prior to my involvement the other day the article has had six edits since its creation in November 2003. Four of the edits were by DavidLevinson, who appears to be very associated with the article subject. The edit load of the article is not usually one of a notable subject. A google search does not reveal easily found secondary sources of information. After the "proposed deletion" template added was removed the other day, a reference was added which cites "The Urban Transportation Monitor". While this may verify the information, it does not address the subject's notability since The Urban Transportation Monitor doesn't seem to be very notable, either. If other users, especially users not involved in the article subject, could add information that demonstrates the subject's notability, that would be helpful. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 04:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some detailed references to expand the notability. This has been the subject of an academic paper that easily establishes its notability. It has also been the subject of a couple of engineering "newsletter" articles. It is funded by the the US DOT. I do not question its notability. The fact that it centers around a "principal investigator" does not lessen the notability to me. Without someone to lead the charge, the federal government would not be spending money on it. (For the record, I have no conflict of interest with this article. I came around because it was posted at the transportation-related deletion sorting.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That academic paper was written by the primary source, and it was published by another party. The "newsletter" articles are often unattributed and makes heavy reference to information provided by the primary source.  There are many projects funded by the federal government; few are notable.  When a topic is written about by independent sources, then it becomes notable.  To this point all that appears is that the principal investigator's words have been disseminated. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 15:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD resulted in a keep which is a determination that the article satisfies the criteria for a stand-alone article. Therefore the notability tag is being removed. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) So, I am removing the importance template. It seems like you do not agree with the closure of AfD as a "keep". I suggest that you read the "if you disagree with the consensus" section in the WP:Guide to deletion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (1) The notability of this subject has been reviewed during the AfD process. So it does not have "unclear notability". (2) The text of the article and the references/sources were reviewed during the AfD process and determined (by concensus) that the article establishes the notability of the subject. If notability was not established, then the result would have been delete. Clearly, you do not understand why the importance template exists. The importance is one of many tags that are used in a preliminary manner before the AfD process. Please read the third bullet of WP:BEFORE. Please provide a quotation from the template usage documentation on why this template applies. I consider you current reasoning to be insufficient. You are quoting the template itself (which is for readers) and concluding that this template does not have anything to do with deletion. I am reviewing and quoting (1) the deletion guide pages and (2) the template documentation (which is for editors). I have already pointed you to the "if you disagree with the consensus" section. I again suggest that you follow that process - first wait a period of time to see if the article gets improved and then renominate for deletion if it does not. (So you are correct that the AfD process does not constitute a "perfect" determination that the subject is notable. But your recourse is to RENOMINATE FOR DELETION, not to tag with a template like this.) Please provide more detail why this template should apply. I have given ample, detailed reasons why it should not. In my thoughts, you have "picked" it because you were not happy with the result of the AfD. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead, I have added the "importance" templates. They don't mention deletion or merge, but it mentions adding reference that improve the article for the benefit of a general audience. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 21:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The importance template says: "This article needs context or references with which to establish the notability of the subject matter." But the AfD process reviewed these exact things and determined that the subject has the notability necessary to remain a individual article. I cannot see anything that has changed since this AfD was closed. Notability, importance, or "whatever else you want to call it" has been reviewed and found to be at the appropriate level for this subject.
 * PennySpender, you need to look at what I wrote. I picked "importance" because that template does not threaten about article merger or deletion.  AfD assesses the article to see if the article is so lacking in the regard that it should be deleted.  I don't think the AfD served to say that the subject's notability has been perfectly demonstrated, only that it has been sufficiently demonstrated not to get deleted.  I suggest you don't try to read more into my comments than what I actually write. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pesco, I still do not see where this template applies. (1) Under usage section for importance, it states "this template will place tagged articles in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability." (2) It also states "use this template when the subject probably is notable enough, but the article fails to establish notability."

More on Notability
The following is from WP:Notability, Footnote 2: "The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept."

References 1 and 2 in the article are written by the primary source published by others. Again, reference 3 is an unattributed article in a newsletter, the e-version of which being stored on the primary source's webserver. Reference 4 mentions that the survey archive receives federal funding, but that does not mean the archive is notable.

The article would most likely not exist had it not been created by the primary source, Dr. Levinson. The references do support factual information. But regarding notability, all the references indicate to me is that Dr. Levinson has been moderately successful at having others pass on what he has written. I don't think there is any/enough info written "independently about the topic", as the policy states, to demonstrate the article's notability. That's why I feel the template is appropriate at the moment. If, after time, additional references demonstrating notability are not found & added to the article, I will most likely renominate for AfD. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 03:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gRlLiGDX?url=http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf to http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5gRlLiGDX?url=http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf to http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/docs/tmip/newsletter/summer07_issue27/summer07_issue27.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearinghouse/343

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223173327/http://rational.ce.umn.edu/MTSA_article.pdf to http://rational.ce.umn.edu/MTSA_article.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)