Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive


 * 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   keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

1. Article does not demonstrate subject's notability. See article talk page. 2. Article appears to be edited mostly by a user very involved in the subject organization/project. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)  3. There are no or not enough sources of info independant of the article subject to demonstrate widespread notability. All reference sources are based on the work of the principal investigator. ~ Pesco  So say•we all 15:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. See this Google Books result and this Google Scholars result. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The book/paper appears to be cowritten by the main contributor of the article, DavidLevinson. It is a primary source since he appears to be the chief researcher.  1. This doesn't seem to be "significant" coverage, and 2. the whole article could be considered self promotion.  ~  Pesco  So say•we all 13:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. You're right. Since both links are not third-party sources and I can find no other sources for this article, this travel survey archive is non-notable.  Delete . Cunard (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that the google book link is a collection of papers edited by Peter Stopher, a professor at the University of Sydney and someone who has earned a PhD. This probably means that the publication meets the criteria to be considered (Wikipedia:Reliable#Scholarship) scholarly material by the guideline of WP:Reliable Sources. If it is scholarly, then the WP:Policy of WP:Verifiability says that this source trumps all others. The fact that the same person wrote the scholarly paper as wrote the content in WikiPedia is irrelevant to me. It is not like he is making any red flag claims. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The paper by User:DavidLevinson is a reliable source, but it doesn't appear to be a third-party source. Levinson is affilicated with the Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive, since he was one of the people who was "helpful in building this resource". I can't make up my mind whether this article should be kept or not, so I will remain neutral. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see how the paper can be used as a reliable source. It's his project, and he authored the reference. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Keep Yes I am the Principal Investigator on the project. The article is verifiable, hence the independent Urban Transport Monitor link, which was provided. I wish it were popular enough for the New York Times, but clearly it is too technical. The archive has been used by other researchers and is important infrastructure in travel behavior research, but itself is not going to be the subject of too many articles. It is really disappointing wikipedia no longer lives up to the goal "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. dml (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * David, thank you for acknowledging your possible conflict of interest up front. I have been involved before in drawn out discussions with other editors where they never admit as such. To me, the simple admission goes a long way to reducing the WP:COI and achieving the suggestion on WP:COI to "exercise great caution". Now anyone who wants to comment (including Pesco) can make his own choice to consider or discount any remarks you make in this discussion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on his contributions to the article and to this discussion I have listed it at WP:COIN. His admission, while appreciated, only happened after I already noted his involvement.  How has "great caution" been exercised?  He created an article about the project he is the director of, he wrote or heavily contributed to all references that could be used, and he's voted to keep the article in this discussion.  Jimmy Whales also said "This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing. Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty." How can you be neutral if all the research is your own? On top of it, an admin should go above and beyond to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was hardly a secret, my user name is my real name (sans a space, due to the fact that in the early days of wikipedia everything was CamelCase) unlike most people here. That said, I am not the primary source or author of the Urban Transportation Monitor article. Also COI policies came about well after (1) the article was written, and (2) I was an admin. Finally, so long as the COI is noted, (and I think my user name discloses everything anyone wants to know), and the article is unbiased (judge for yourself) COI (in the real world) does not necessarily require recusal, just disclosure. dml (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing on your user page or talk page that says your are the Principal Investigator of the Metropolitan Travel Survey Archive. I only connected your name with the project after looking through things for a while.  "It was hardly a secret" is not the same as disclosing a relationship.  I admit the COI may have been implemented/modified after the article was created, but it exists now, and so I think that should determine whether you cast votes on anything regarding this article. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May I kindly remind you about WP:COI since you are the Principal Investigator. That includes comments on article deletion.  You're a Wikipedia admin, so I'm surprised COI has to be brought up.  Also, the reference you mention is an article in a trade publication that heavily quotes you, almost making it a primary source. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This "trade" publication is (1) currently credited to an editor with a PhD and a P.E., and (2) has been published for 22 years. I would have to consider that a WP:RELIABLE source. The only negative is that the article is not directly credited to an author. However, it is more of a "newsletter" format, and crediting each article is not always done in that format. Based on the editors qualifications and the publishing record of this "trade" publication, it cannot be considered a "self-published source." To me, these two factors (reliable and not self-published) mean that there is no way it could be considered a primary source. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From reading the trade article, my impression is that most/all of the info of note was obtained from the Principal Investigator. If the subject were actually notable there would be plenty of reliable sources that are truly independant of DavidLevinson.  ~  Pesco  So say•we all 05:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though it is admitted that the creator of the article has a conflict of interest, there are no extraordinary claims made therein. The article is kept short and factual. The subject of "data abandonment" will become more of an issue in the future, and this article covers that subject (and efforts to prevent it) for one small technical area. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Srong Keep. I find the sources to be reliable per my comments above; there are two separate PhD's that have found the material contained in this article to be worthy of publication and have backed it up as "editor".
 * Did these two seperate PhD's independantly verify anything about the project? While I still question whether they are "reliable sources", notability is the big issue, I think, and the COI makes this all very messy.  If David did not create the article himself, do you think it would exist right now?  There doesn't appear to be any independant analysis/commentary of the project.  It all seems to be generated by him, one way or the other.  Based on this, I don't think its notability is demonstrated. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 06:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in the book lists 21 references used in writing the article. Written by a PhD, edited by a PhD, the publisher has been in business for 40 years and specializes in acedemic publishing. To me, it is of a quality that a doctoral student could use as a reference for his own thesis. I would certainly accept it as a reference for any traffic engineer working on one of my projects. The newsletter would work too, but probably not for a thesis paper reference. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 12:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There appears to be a chapter in this book about the archive in addition to the other references.  This seems to be one of those situations where something is notable but still not well-known outside of a specialized field.  There would probably be no article without someone with a conflict of interest writing it in the first place but that is not a reason to delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That is the same book that is discussed above. Just found on Amazon versus Google. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same book, and that chapter is the same one that is written by David Levinson. If the only references are based on the paid professional in charge of the project, is it really that notable?  I don't think there are any sources that are independent enough of David.  I'm sure his work is good for his field, and I would want to tell other people about my work, also, but notability is established when other people write about the work.  Not when those involved in project get their own work widely disseminated.~  Pesco  So say•we all 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since traffic surveys are a specialized field in the subject of traffic engineering (which is a specialized sub-field of civil engineering), one cannot expect Time (magazine) or the New York Times to cover this issue. People will always be more interest in Britney's latest antics or what kind of dog is living in the White House. This is why the notability guideline says notability sources SHOULD be secondary. Because there are numerous technical fields where one has to accept primary sources. The TWO primary sources written by David Levinson (and currently listed in the article) are third-party published. This increases their reliability. Under the WP:NPOV policy, it is clear that these sources may be used. Please read WP:PRIMARY. The source I added to the article from the USDOT website is another primary source (they are funding the project), but it is self-published. However, in the fields of traffic and transportation engineering, the USDOT is widely accepted as an authoritative, reliable source. These sufficiently combine to establish notability to me. It is clear that they will not be enough for you. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the convincing arguments above.Ikip (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are obvious COI issues but as has been pointed out the article is not promotional and just states that there is such an archive. I can't see why it should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not contesting the accuracy of what's said, but Wikipedia articles have to prove notability. I wish someone would address how this article meets notability, considering all of the references are David's work being disseminated. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is noted above that Urban Transportation Montitor article is not written by the same David Levinson. This makes it a WP:SECONDARY source as required by the WP:Notability guideline. "Quoting" the primary source is exactly what a reliable secondary source is supposed to do. Also as noted above, this publication is currently edited by a person with a PhD and a professional engineering license. It has been published for 22 years. If that does not qualify it as a WP:RELIABLE source then I don't why I bother looking for sources at all. If it is still in business after 22 years, they must be doing something right about reaching their target audience. (Yes, this presumes market penetration. However it seems to me to be a resonable presumption.)


 * Comment This subject of the article is federally funded as shown by one of the references. This is not in itself enough for notability but I believe it contributes to notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2009 (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.