Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poll Bludger (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 13:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Bludger (edit | 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)

As the publisher of the site covered by this page, I would like to reactivate an earlier discussion concerning its potential deletion. I support this idea and the suggestion of absorbing its subject matter into a more general page about Australian political blogging. William Bowe (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi William. Have you declared your potential WP:COI on the article Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I have now (I think). William Bowe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:BIODELETE. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per arguments of original nom. J2m5 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The article currently is supported by 6 significant reliable sources; the previous nomination showed four more. The site's detailed election guides are a valuable resource for related Wikipedia articles. A nomination by the site's author raises concerns. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of those six sources, only one offers significant coverage of the Poll Bludger (The Age). The Fabian Society is not a reliable source and does not offer significant coverage. The ABC and Crikey sources do not offer significant coverage of Poll Bludger and are not independent, as those sources are related to Bowe's work writing for those publications. The two Conversation sources do not give significant coverage of the Poll Bludger either and are just interviews with Bowe. Steelkamp (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the Poll Bludger being a valuable source itself does not have any bearing on whether this article should be deleted. Steelkamp (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:BIODELETE link from Steelkamp above notes: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no clear consensus to keep may be closed as delete." So it wouldn't seem to be Wikipedia policy that a nomination for deletion by a site's author "raises concerns". William Bowe (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2024 (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.