Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDEAL model


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

IDEAL model

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is poorly sourced, the only external link is broken, and it reads like an advertisement for a rather non-notable system/company. ThePortaller (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  01:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the merge suggestion vs. a straight delete
 * Delete. It looks like a University project or PhD thesis, there are refs but they are mostly unsearchable and the two that aren't are 404s. This sniffs as non notable. Not many edits since creation and could possibly have been prodded. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Best management practice for water pollution leaving a redirect, but remove the spam section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Broken links, etc. aside I'm not seeing a strong case for notability. Though none of us can really seem to find the cited research articles, from the way they're used in the article I'm pretty confident the first 3 have nothing to do with the article topic, having been written years before the topic was created. Rather, they're all being used to verify the claim that The model's runoff treatment algorithms are process-based by predicting runoff rates and pollutant loads and routing these loadings through BMPs using technologies which have been experimentally validated. Essentially, it's taking citations the model's research papers also used to verify that claim, but citing the original source, not the research paper. We're left with two papers by the same set of authors and an EPA manual. The manual, though it too is a broken link, isn't even about the IDEAL model, it was just written by the same author as the two papers. I don't think it's notable enough even in the field of Best management practice for water pollution to warrant more than a mention, so I'm not sure if any merging needs to take place.  Pinguinn     🐧   05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I was originally considering that the EPA Additional guide (see 11-15 to 11-16) gave some useful information. Which it does. However the problem is is that it in the pages around it provides a dozen or more specialised variants related to aspects of BMP. In effect, it seems to provide some reliability while getting rid of actual notability, at least in terms of a merge. IDEAL makes up too small an aspect of BMP with so many other potential variations, I would say. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.