Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral Calculus

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. per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral Calculus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NWEB. No scope for the article to "offer detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance", as no such achievements, impact or significance is claimed. Not "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", and has not "won a well-known and independent award". Fails notability. Kevin McE (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator) I've tracked down a few more sources, which I'll endeavour to include in the article during the period of this discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anyone who knows anything about contemporary elections to the UK Parliament knows about Electoral Calculus. It is one of very few tried and tested forecasting tools, and is very heavily cited online. I realise that Wikipedia is very wary of online phenomena, but honestly, when I see some of the crap (eg. Pokemon) that has an article on Wikipedia (some even GA and FA class) and then I see an AFD on an important topic like Electoral Calculus, it makes me think that the world has gone mad. Electoral Calculus is an absolute gem, easily as notable as UK Polling Report (OMG, I cannot believe that is a redlink) or politicalbetting.com, and approx 10 times more notable than narrow partisan blogs like Liberal Democrat Voice etc, and approx 1000 times more notable than the Newbury Weekly News etc (why on earth do we have so many articles on miniscule local newspapers?)--Mais oui! (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) per WP:GNG. The site is clearly worthy of notice. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. WP:NWEB states Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline [...] (my underlining). Further sources which I don't expect I'll include any time soon are: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] -- Trevj (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an additional piece of information which is important to bear in mind is that this website is very rarely referred to by its official name "Electoral Calculus" by the communities who are interested in this type of thing. It is almost always referred to as simply "Baxter", or occasionally "Martin Baxter". So, I would take any Google searches based only on just "Electoral Calculus" with a pinch of salt. When something gets widely known by a nickname then you know that it has arrived. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Trevj. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good coverage in refs, also google hits are good and per Mais oui! →TSU ^tp* 15:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to see that this does indeed seem to meet notability thresholds: the article I saw last Thursday asserted little or nothing that made it evident that it did so. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2012 (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.