Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIKE URBAN


 * 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 due consensus that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.  MBisanz  talk 21:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

MIKE URBAN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Product description from an editor who seems to be an SPA writing up a bunch of articles for one company. This has been at AfD before in a mas nomination, but that went nowhere quickly; see Articles for deletion/DHI Water • Environment • Health. A CSD for A7, G11, which seems appropriate as well, was turned down last year by, who cited the earlier AfD--so let's have a community discussion and see where we stand. Deletion per lack of notability certainly seems like the right decision to me. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just to be clear A CSD for A7, G11, which seems appropriate as well, was turned down last year by is technically accurate but a little misleading; my exact wording (after I'd speedily deleted it) was I'm undoing my own delete and declining the CSD nom on this. Given that this has previously survived AFD, I don't feel speedy is appropriate even though I can't really see how it's salvageable. Feel free to take it to AFD again. FWIW, I think the entire oeuvre of, the creator, could safely be bulk deleted as spam, but since a bulk nomination was closed as "keep all" speedy deletion isn't an option, since by definition the deletion isn't "uncontroversial". ‑ Iridescent 21:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I didn't get all the actions/edits in there. I agree with you re: the bulk deletion--that was an odd AfD, and it complicates matters for us a little bit here. But there's no rush, I suppose, and I dare predict that this and other AfDs won't be problematic. BTW, I also PRODded two related articles, LITPACK and DHI (company), the latter a new(er) article by another but equally involved editor, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Obscure software without significant coverage in secondary sources. MB  01:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- when I first joined the wikipedia, in 2004, our deletion policy was very clear -- deletion was to be based on the notability of the topic. By those rules, it would be largely irrelevant if the current version of the article seemed to be written by an SPA, provided there were valid references, out there, that supported the notability of the topic.  Personally, I still think following the advice of WP:BEFORE is important.  I'm curious, and would like to know how many of the scholarly articles, written by independent third parties, that discuss the pros and cons of this package, in detail, our nominator reviewed.  I just checked.  I thought that we had a special purpose notability guideline, that dealt specifically with software.  I found an archived failed guideline, Software notability.  So, what inclusion standards are we using here?
 * 1) Am I correct that it is irrelevant if we all agree a biased SPA inserted biased content here -- if the topic itself measures up to our inclusion standards?  Isn't the appropriate response then a biasectomy, not deletion?
 * 2) Are we evaluating this article on GNG?  Or are there special purpose guidelines that apply?
 * 3) I was quite surprised at how many hits scholar.google.com produced.  A small number of those hits were due to hitting people named "Mike Urban".  But most hits were about the software.
 * 4) I was surprised at how many of the scholar.google hits had links to the full article.  Most times I use scholar.google 80-90 percent of the hits only link to abstracts, while, for this topic, about fifty percent of the hits linked to the full article.
 * I added MIKE URBAN, adding just a single reference, to the first of the hundreds of scholarly articles that talked about the package. I didn't really finish going through it, skipping ahead and taking a cursory look at a few of the other articles.  One of the other of the handful of articles I looked at referenced MIKE URBAN 43 times.


 * It looks like a surfeit of riches.


 * This is a complicated topic. I think it is an example of the kind of article that can't be written about, in detail, if one doesn't really understand the topic.


 * I could perform a biasectomy. I could quote a few more scholarly articles, without understanding this topic well enough to cover it, in detail.  What I would like to know is whether there would be any point in doing so.  Specifically, what would it take to convince our nominator, and , the nominator at the previous bulk nominations, that the topic did measure up to our inclusion standards?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't know where to start with this, so I'll just say that "Rainwater and Urban Design 2007" isn't an academic journal but a conference (organized by the International Rainwater Catchment Systems Association), and what you claim is a scholarly article is in fact a paper presentation, 8 pages long, by V. G. Mitchell, H. Duncan, M. Inman, M. Rahilly, J. Stewart et al. (it has fifteen co-authors). The link you gave is faulty, but the paper is here; conference presentations are called papers, not articles, and I guess you don't know that such presentations are not considered academic articles, in part because the threshold for inclusion is much lower--like, infinitely lower--and there is no peer review of the paper as a whole. If you're not an academic you're not required to know this, of course. Now, in this paper, Mike Urban is one of seven programs that are reviewed (this must have been one boring presentation); maybe five sentences are devoted to it. In other words, I hope that some of the other hundreds of scholarly articles are acceptable references and spend a bit more time on our subject. As far as BEFORE is concerned: if you can't properly evaluate whatever you found through Amazon, you probably shouldn't be reading me or Iridescent the riot act. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WRT "the riot act", no one read you the riot act.
 * Okay, you looked at the one paper I referenced. Thanks for that.  I am not going to belabor this point, but it looks like you still haven't looked at any of the other hundreds of articles.
 * I asked you what it would take before you agreed the topic was notable, after all. I think it is a very reasonable question.  I spent half an hour or so looking at the scholar.google results, and added another reference.  I have to decide whether its worthwhile to go through some of those other papers.
 * Maybe you know some good reason why this topic can never measure up to our notability criteria? Well, if you do know a compelling reason why the topic can never be notable, don't let me waste my time working on it.  Why not simply spell out why the topic can't be notable?
 * If your idea on whether the topic of the MIKE URBAN software was notable depends on certain conditions being met, let me repeat my request that you articulate what those criteria are. I don't think any of us should have to guess at what it would take to convince our correspondents.  Shouldn't we feel we can count on our correspondents to make the effort to clearly spell out their position?
 * Back in 2005 I had a long discussion where both my correspondent and I disagreed strongly. But I was fair and honest with him, and he was fair and honest with me.  He said (paraphrasing) I could never agree with W unless X, Y and Z were true.  With a little work, I was able to substantiate that X, Y and Z were true.  He was gracious about agreeing to W, and I thanked him for making me go to the effort of substantiating X, Y and Z.  We both agreed that the article in question was considerably improved, due to his challenge, and the efforts I made to satisfy his concerns.  As I turned away from my computer, that night, I looked forward to lots more productive challenges.  Sadly, I have found that kind of cooperative disagreement all too rare.  So, how about it?  Could you make the effort to be clear as to what you think would make this topic notable?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You gave only one example; I discussed it. If you want to give me some more of your hundreds of examples, I will be happy to look at them. If you don't give me any of the hundreds of examples, I'm going to assume you don't have hundreds of examples. In the meantime, I am happy that you acknowledge that I actually looked very carefully at your example (I even read it) and investigated its background and status; I can't escape the feeling that I did a lot more work on it than you did. As for your other question--the answer is in WP:GNG. That is all. Significant discussion in reliable sources. You say they exist, but you don't produce any of them, so I have no reason to change my mind. Why are you spending so many words in an AfD discussion on stuff that doesn't pertain? Drmies (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Geo Swan, I have no idea what "Iridescent, the nominator at the previous bulk nominations" is supposed to mean, but if you're going to make things up at least make things up that take more than two seconds to check. The bulk nomination is prominently linked in the initial statement, and you'll note that at no point does my name appear on it. &#8209; Iridescent 18:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , you suggested I could find the answer to my questions in GNG? Has it been a really long time since you looked at it yourself?  WP:GNG says.
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources ... Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."
 * "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources ... Thus, before proposing or nominating an article or deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."


 * }
 * You asked for a list of the hundreds of RS that discuss this software? Clicking on the "scholar" link above produced 815 google scholar hits.  Some of them are false positives, so I used "MIKE URBAN" rainwater OR modeling.  425 google scholar hits.
 * I asked you under what conditions you would agree that the topic of the MIKE URBAN software measured up to our notability criteria. In response you explained why you felt the first paper I referenced conferred only a small amount of notability, and you gave what I think could fairly be described as a vague handwave in the direction of GNG.  But, GNG says you had an obligation to briefly familiarize yourself with the references out there, with web searches of  your own.  Since you can't or won't perform your own web search, your opinion of whether this topic measures up to GNG is, well, uninformed.  Geo Swan (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The article on the company (DHI (company)) has been recently improved by editor and could be a suitable target, if the article on the SW is found to be independently non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very decent suggestion. The one article linked by Geo Swan could conceivably support a sentence or two in a main article, even if the source is just a conference presentation, not a publication. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I spot-checked a few of the sources.  They appear to be committee reports which mention this software package in passing.  Not the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, I don't think any weight should be given to the keep close of the previous AfD. It looks to me like that was more about there being too many pages bundled into a single proposal for people to sort out than anybody specifically arguing to keep this page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The article on the company (DHI (company)) has been recently improved by editor and could be a suitable target, if the article on the SW is found to be independently non-notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very decent suggestion. The one article linked by Geo Swan could conceivably support a sentence or two in a main article, even if the source is just a conference presentation, not a publication. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I spot-checked a few of the sources.  They appear to be committee reports which mention this software package in passing.  Not the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, I don't think any weight should be given to the keep close of the previous AfD. It looks to me like that was more about there being too many pages bundled into a single proposal for people to sort out than anybody specifically arguing to keep this page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very decent suggestion. The one article linked by Geo Swan could conceivably support a sentence or two in a main article, even if the source is just a conference presentation, not a publication. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I spot-checked a few of the sources.  They appear to be committee reports which mention this software package in passing.  Not the kind of in-depth coverage we're looking for.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, I don't think any weight should be given to the keep close of the previous AfD. It looks to me like that was more about there being too many pages bundled into a single proposal for people to sort out than anybody specifically arguing to keep this page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2016 (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.