Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political Forecasting

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 (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Forecasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Vague claims of notability, not supported by references. Essentially an elaborate advertisement page (db-spam was denied without prejudice). VasileGaburici (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn; term was used at least since the 80's in scholarly articles, so it seems a valid encyclopedic subject; oddly enough Wikipedia did not have an article on it. VG ☎ 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Forecasting attempts to be a higher-level theory page for PollyVote. But it mostly duplicates material from PollyVote, and the substantive references are subset of those from PollyVote. Given that User:Pollyvote created Political Forecasting, this shouldn't come as a surprise. A quick google search shows that "political forecasting" is practically a synonym for pollyvote. PollyVote is clearly a notable article, no issue there, but the attempt to present Political Forecasting as a genuine separate notion or theory is dubious at best. VasileGaburici (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge any relevant and unique information into the article on PolyVote (perhaps as a subsection with this article's title) -Markeer 01:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The article lacks proper citations and is severely underdeveloped, but political forecasting is a legitimate area of academic study. A variety of major international organizations, including the United Nations, regularly publish political forecasts and there is a small, but very real, number of academics in universities around the US that would consider themselves to be political forecasters. I, myself, took a course on political forecasting in graduate school. As it stands, the article is crap, but the topic itself is notable and legitimate. --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – More than enough Scholarly books on the subject matter, as shown here [1]] to establish a piece here on Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.