Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psepholograph

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. czar 05:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psepholograph

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was written by Matt Balogh, who invented the "psepholograph" in his 1993 book, Quantitative political analysis in Australia: introducing the psepholograph. Contrary to the author's claims presented without evidence on the article's talk page, the word is not widely used. Googling it reveals only clones of the article. Google Scholar and Google Books return Balogh's book (with no articles citing it) and an unrelated exam prep book in which the word appears as an incorrect answer to a multiple-choice question. There is also a post from a confused Redditor who came across the Wiki article but couldn't find any other info. The seven citations in the article are not helpful. Three are broken links, even the auto-generated Wayback archives, meaning the links were presumably broken back when they were archived almost a decade ago. Two are links to Balogh's profiles on websites of organisations he has worked for, neither of which mentions the psepholograph. Two are external pages that also do not mention it. The last one is a link to a short record of Balogh's book, with no information, just the title and keywords, on scientificcommons.org, a website that no longer exists. Also, there is little use in an article about a type of data visualisation if it includes neither a picture of the visualisation nor a description of how it looks. 1o8x (talk) 05:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like pure original research from a 1993 Master's thesis. I can't find any evidence for the author's claims that this is an "accepted term" or that it has succeeded the Mackerras pendulum in any sense, be that use by psephologists or media publication to the public—in fact, while the article is scant on any technical detail or illustration whatsoever, that seems to be the case for the broader internet, where I can find not one illustration or example of a psepholograph outside of Balogh's thesis, and believe me, I am very interested in psephology, visualisation and related concepts. The Reddit question indicates that the article's very existence is a problem—the suggestions of its widespread use is confusing and even misleading for readers who then find no details or examples of the concept on Wikipedia, Google or anywhere. As the nominator has outlined, the references seem reasonably numerous, but upon deeper inspection merely verify Balogh's employers and authorship of the thesis, with the last three actually referring to Mackerras's pendulum, not the psepholograph. --Canley (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Canley (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all refereces are now archived, points to topics being not relevant. Also most page contributions are not independant, coming from thesis author. Teraplane (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Canley. Bookscale (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2019 (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.