Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social polling


 * 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. Article's been sourced and improved since nomination - Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Social polling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the link to the article, "social polling" pulls up apps that allow users to make polls. Nothing appears to come up that's RS. Created by SPA User:Socialpollster. MSJapan (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Using a simple WP:BEFORE style search, I have added 6 sources since the initial prod. There is a Time piece, 2 academic papers, and a piece by the pollster Pew Research that look secondary and reliable. The entrepreneur.com piece is secondary and in depth, but is a lightweight source. The Variety piece may or may not be reliable, but is secondary. Overall, there are multiple in-depth reliable sources needed for notability per WP:GNG and upon which to build a modest article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd've taken a wide berth on some of those (especially entrepreneur as failing WP:NONCOM), and I think the academic papers are WP:PRIMARY, but I'd have to read them to see how they're being cited. I think I'd rather see this as part of open access poll if we're at a point where there's good enough sourcing.  I'm still seeing a bit of a conceptual disconnect between the confluence of big data, social media as polling location, and social media for poll creation.  It might be the state of the article itself, but I don't think the sources are in sync with the article, and at least open access poll will give it some context.  Also, as a nitpick, should the title be "social poll" the noun vs. "social polling" the active gerund? MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There are enough sources provided to support the topic's notability. However this is a stub and could use more text deriving from the sources. Also the source declaring social polling to be "unscientific" may itself be unreliable. Author Brian Lowry is a television critic who bases the assertion on an uncited statement by the Public Agenda organization. Actual input by qualified experts may be needed to declare anything to be unscientific. Dimadick (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the stub. I agree and will remove the Lowry source and claim. --Mark viking (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes GNG per recent edits. p  b  p  15:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG. --Dcirovic (talk) 16:42, 24 June 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.