- 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 no consensus. As this is due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Poll Bludger
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Poll Bludger ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:GNG, particularly a lack of WP:SIGCOV. J2m5 ( talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Australia. J2m5 ( talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning keep It would be worth looking into references from the 2007 Australian election era - from memory, The Australian newspaper went on a (rather strange) crusade against this and other websites covering opinion polls after they critiqued how the newspaper was interpreting polls. This might amount to sufficient coverage. As an Australian political nerd, this website is very well known among other Australian political nerds. I suspect that it's notable. Nick-D ( talk) 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Nick-D: If you have found
WP:SIGCOV, you need to link it here, and then that will be that. Otherwise, in my view there are no grounds to keep the article.
J2m5 (
talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's going to be difficult to do not because it's not notable but because it's going to be difficult to search, considering my BEFORE search just brought up pages and pages of articles from this news source, and when not it's because another news source quotes it. SportingFlyer T· C 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Nick-D: If you have found
WP:SIGCOV, you need to link it here, and then that will be that. Otherwise, in my view there are no grounds to keep the article.
J2m5 (
talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Websites. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Probably keepagree with Nick-D, this is a prominent website for Australian poll-watchers and it's hard to imagine there won't be any sources covering it in some capacity – the difficulty is extracting coverage of the website itself from the gazillion times it has been mentioned in passing to verify some figure or analysis. – Tera tix ₵ 13:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- Just because poll watchers like the website doesn't grant it notability... those forms of coverage (citation) are apparently cited below by Spinifex&Sand as reasons to keep the article. So it's still unclear to me what the grounds to keep the article are. I also visit Poll Bludger at least three times a week. J2m5 ( talk) 10:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I conducted a search re
J2m5's request for
WP:SIGCOV. Without finding a specific article about Poll Bludger, there were many reputable sources that included references to it. Bearing in mind
WP:N Basic Criteria, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”, I think there is enough to achieve notability.
Spinifex&Sand (
talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" applied to when such articles treated the subject as one of many elements of focus in the article. The mentions of Poll Bludger in reputable sources are citations of Poll Bludger. By this logic many journalists would have Wikipedia articles, when this is not the case. We cannot feasibly close this AfD without sources being presented which actually focus on Poll Bludger in at least partial depth without it being simply cited as a source.
J2m5 (
talk) 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- There's lots of little cites such as [1]. Worst case scenario we move it to the person who runs the blog. SportingFlyer T· C 23:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" applied to when such articles treated the subject as one of many elements of focus in the article. The mentions of Poll Bludger in reputable sources are citations of Poll Bludger. By this logic many journalists would have Wikipedia articles, when this is not the case. We cannot feasibly close this AfD without sources being presented which actually focus on Poll Bludger in at least partial depth without it being simply cited as a source.
J2m5 (
talk) 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am currently giving zero weight to the two SOURCESMUSTEXIST arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I've come up short on a source search. The best I can find are a master's thesis (not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) that gives a few passing mentions, less-than-significant coverage in "Newspaper Blogs: The Genuine Article or Poor Counterfeits?", and passing mention in "The role of blogging in public deliberation and democracy". But none of these contribute towards SIGCOV, and I'm beginning to doubt that this blog itself has been covered significantly by multiple independent RS. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've had a deeper look into what sources are available. In particular, I was able to track down the spate of Rudd-era coverage Nick-D mentioned. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ Norington, Brad (4 August 2007). "Blog's breakfast". The Australian. p. 26.
- ^ Hills, Rachel (28 October 2007). "Psephological blogger rhythms". The Age. p. 12.
- ^ Price, Jenna (23 November 2007). "Playing possum with polls and politics". The Canberra Times. p. 9.
- ^ Shanahan, Dennis (21 February 2008). "Pundits' margin of hypocrisy on polls". The Australian. p. 2.
- ^ Kerr, Christian (15 June 2009). "Our blogs too analytical, intolerant". The Australian. p. 32.
- To my judgement none of the sources give enough coverage to Poll Bludger in particular to meet GNG.
- However, they do appear to give enough coverage to justify reviving an article on political blogs in Australia: this article briefly existed in 2006, was redirected to political blog on the understanding its content would be retained there but then the target was itself merged to Blog#Political impact in 2015, which only contains US-related content. The latter decision to merge was done unilaterally and probably seemed innocuous at the time. In hindsight that seems to have been a poor call and someone should probably look into reviving political blog as a full-fledged article as well.
- Anyway, my view is now un-redirect political blogs in Australia and merge this article there. – Tera tix ₵ 11:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with Teratix's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 5 February 2024 (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.