Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro-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. L Faraone  01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Micro-urban

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NEO; this is a term of recent coinage of little significance and almost no coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:NOTPROMOTION: The article history makes it clear this emerged as a vehicle to promote the micro-urban concept developers in Champaign-Urbana began to push about 5 years ago. The bits and pieces of original research as to other places that fit the mold at this point only mask the issue. Most of the sources are minor coverage, consist of advertising copy, or discuss the promotion of the concept in some way. This article was deleted via WP:PROD in May, and recently undeleted. The editor who requested undeletion has added two sources, one of which is an unsigned article at a blog simply defining the word, and the other is a blog entry that merely features the phrase in its title, and not anywhere in the text. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction Above I say that one of the new sources is an unsigned blog article. I was incorrect. It is signed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for the comments, Mendaliv. While much of what you note is accurate, I do not believe this page rises to need for deletion. I believe the original coinage of this term was by a community advocate in Champaign-Urbana and not the developers. Yes, the development company used the concept (I'm sure they saw it as worthwhile), but did not originate it as I understand it. The advocate and others have promoted its usage, but since coinage it has seen a minor uptick in usage elsewhere as well. And moreso I see it as a relatively useful urban planning concept, and one that can be further improved. My request for undeletion rests on that, and as such I am working on a complete overhaul of the entry. As you noted, I've only added a couple references as of now, but anticipate doing further editing to improve this entry as I'm able to formulate it. I agree with you that it currently is lacking, but I see potential for a more productive resource here. I'm less interested in the Champaign-Urbana origins than the overall improvement of a seemingly new concept that I, and I believe others, will find useful. WikiWesty (talk) 12 July 2013


 * Keep. "Micro-urban" might be a relatively new term but is gaining prominence. There are a couple of reliable sources (2 News-Gazette articles) which use this term. I think this stub-level entry should stay. AlmostGrad (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read those articles. One relates to a few individuals' efforts to promote the use of the term for branding settlements similar to Champaign-Urbana (which promotion is stated to include this Wikipedia article). The other is a mere attestation of the term, and from a notability standpoint, would comprise insignificant coverage. In neither is the term reliably defined. At best you've got an argument for a merge to Champaign-Urbana, though I disagree with such an outcome. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Planetizen reference too - it seems to be a reliable source (its Wikipedia entry says it has editorial oversight), and focuses exclusively on the subject of this article. The Futurist also seems to be a reliable source, and the Futurist article also focuses only on this subject. AlmostGrad (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the Planetizen article isn't about the term at all: it only uses it once, in the title. Mere attestations are not reliable sources of prominence or significance. The short blurb in The Futurist is essentially a dictionary definition (though fairly nonspecific, and does not appear to be a secondary source for the meaning of the word). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - because it doesn't really matter who coined the phrase first - for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion here, it needs to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and I don't think it has yet. My other concern is that the article is entirely US-centric and this isn't Ameripedia. There are probably a dozen places in the UK that could be described as being "micro-urban" and dozens more in Europe. I can think of at least half-a-dozen in Australia that would meet the criteria. And that's kind of the point - if this were a term in widespread use, it would have been used in relation to a great many more places. At the moment, we don't even have reliable sources describing those places listed in the article as "mirco-urban". That list is simply OR - based on someone's interpretation of the criteria and how it might apply. Most telling of all is the line from the people who claim to have coined the term-
 * Not much more to say about it I'm afraid. Stalwart 111  23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not much more to say about it I'm afraid. Stalwart 111  23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Stalwart and WP:NEO. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term."  And it seems like local boosterism.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would note a couple things. First, if one follows the link through, the complete article the Planetizen summary is describing, on Urban Land Institute's site (link) does indeed use "micro urban" multiple times in the article. It's used in context, is written recently, and expands on the concept usefully. By my count, that makes approximately five sources discussing the concept, which would seem to more than meet the criteria of "coverage in multiple" recent legitimate sources. Second, if there are examples in other countries, we should absolutely list them! Please add those edits. That is exactly why the page is useful. In fact, I most recently arrived at it (and discovered this discussion) with the express purpose of finding further examples. I am unaware of a list of similar such cities elsewhere, pointing to the value found here. And expanding the article accordingly would further add value to the entry. I reiterate my keep recommendation. WikiWesty
 * Logical Cowboy's note above is probably the best rebuttal for that claim. We need sources that discuss the term (it's genesis, history, meaning and use) not just sources that use the term. A source that simply uses the term (even several times) isn't sufficient. You also missed a word from the front of your quote - " significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". As for listing examples from other countries, you've kind of missed my point - we can't list them because doing so would be original research. We don't have reliable sources that list those places as being "micro-urban" or describe them as such. The list that existed in the article shouldn't have be there. Adding to it would be counter-productive. Stalwart 111  04:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, the more I look at it, the poorer the sourcing seems. I removed one source which was a Krannert Center reprint of an article written by Mike Ross (Director of said Krannert Center) for the Fox Development Corp. Problem with all of that is that Ross was the fellow who coined the term, according to The News-Gazette, Ross' own local paper. That is it for sourcing related to the subject of this article - the guy who coined the term and his local paper in a story about him. The other two sources (there are three, but the third is a blog) don't talk about the same concept as the article does - they use the term in the context of futuristic micro-settlements and both cite the same quote from the same person in the same way and it has very little to do with the subject of this article. They are ostensibly two different concepts and two people have described them using the same term. The article doesn't cover the second use of the term at all, though it is probably the more notable use of the two (though probably still not notable enough for inclusion here having only been discussed twice and in primary source quote form). Take away the source from Ross himself and this article is supported by a single local newspaper source and even it doesn't discuss the term in detail. Stalwart 111  04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail right on the head, Stalwart111: it's two different concepts. Really it shouldn't be a surprise though: it's in the nature of neologisms coined by merely adding an affix to a common root word that someone's already done it before. Arguably, we can't equate these two without running afoul of WP:SYN, and dealing with the two concepts separately, you've got two WP:N/WP:NEO failures. Especially great care should be taken with any of the sources stemming from the Mike Ross coinage as well because of the documented promotional intent behind the original development of this Wikipedia article and much of the local coverage of the term (see this News-Gazette article). —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the term "micro-urban" as used in this article and in the sources about futuristic settlements are one and the same - both refer to a rural/semi-urban community with the advantages of a big city alongwith the comforts of living in the countryside. However, there does seem to be another meaning - if you search on Google books, there are many books which refer to something called "micro-urbanism", which often seems to be something at the building/architecture level or something to do with farming or rather than at the community/regional level (I am not entirely sure what the meaning exactly is in that context, since the books use the term but none of the ones I could read online define it precisely). AlmostGrad (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They aren't really the same and if we're going to assert as much in the article (which we don't now; we basically ignore the second definition and claim sources for it substantiate notability for the first) we would need a reliable source that defines it broadly enough to encompass both definitions:
 * Definition 1 - "Population centers of 250,000 or less that possess a highly uncommon set of desirable attributes normally exclusively associated with much larger metropolitan centers" - Mike Ross/Champaign-Urbana
 * Definition 2 - "new communities ...that [blur] the traditional boundaries among rural, city, and suburban areas [...] conveniently close to sources of food and energy." - Kotkin/Kiger
 * The problem is that the second is almost exclusively used in the context of 50-year urban forward-planning and in some instances, a very short list of location examples are given where such communities might develop or are, in the writers opinion, more likely to develop. The first, on the other hand, is used by Ross now to describe existing communities. The first doesn't talk about "new communities" or future planning at all and the second ascribes no population-specific definition as Ross consistently does. I think they quite obviously developed separately, without collaboration of any kind, and remain disparate ideas, despite the common term. And I don't think either is notable. Stalwart 111  06:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's also nothing I've seen where Kotkin/Kiger reference Ross or where Ross references Kotkin/Kiger. In fact, the sources we have give distinct attribution for two different ideas to two different people/groups without reference to the other. Of course people coining a term like this (even separately in two different contexts) are always going to be talking about something not entirely dissimilar. But that doesn't mean they are part of the same school of thought or that they were talking about the same thing that is definable enough for us to have an article about it with verification by reliable sources. Stalwart 111  06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am rather confused by all the different uses of the term, so I have added this AfD discussion to Architecture-related deletion discussions and also added a request for expert opinion on WikiProject: Urban studies and planning's talk page. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to keep the article but list all the different meanings in different contexts. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with keeping it as a disambiguation type page. Neither meaning independently crosses the notability threshold. We have no source to demonstrate the two are the same. And frankly, even if we did, I still argue that the concept is not notable, fails WP:NEO, and the article itself runs afoul of WP:PROMOTION. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:36, 18 July 2013 (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.