Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hum poll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Avi 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hum poll
No references; probably original research. Less than 150 ghits, so it's not notable either. The suggested association with a corporation saves it from speedy A7, but not by much. YechielMan 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki/Delete to Wikitionary. This seems like dict-def, but it really doesn't explain what it is, so it might be better to just delete it. --Haemo 07:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is nothing like a dictionary article. It is an encyclopaedia article about hum polls, explaining who uses them and the rationale for their use, not a dictionary article about an idiomatic phrase "hum poll". It is a stub. We don't delete stubs simply for being short. We delete stubs if it can be shown that they are unverifiable or impossible ever to be expanded beyond stub status. Only the nominator has come close to addressing this, but xe didn't actually do research to see whether and what sources exist. Xe merely counted Google hits, which is not research. For all that xe knows, each of those 150 hits could be a detailed article by a reliable source about hum polls.
To all editors: Do the research at AFD! Uncle G 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is nothing like a dictionary article. It is an encyclopaedia article about hum polls, explaining who uses them and the rationale for their use, not a dictionary article about an idiomatic phrase "hum poll". It is a stub. We don't delete stubs simply for being short. We delete stubs if it can be shown that they are unverifiable or impossible ever to be expanded beyond stub status. Only the nominator has come close to addressing this, but xe didn't actually do research to see whether and what sources exist. Xe merely counted Google hits, which is not research. For all that xe knows, each of those 150 hits could be a detailed article by a reliable source about hum polls.
- For example: One of those hits, the Testimony of Jonathan Zittrain describes hum polls, but solely as a tangential mention in describing the operation of the IETF, which implies (if no other sources come to light giving further information) that the bare fact that the IETF uses hum polls should be presented in Internet Engineering Task Force, in the same context inside Wikipedia as the sources present it outside Wikipedia. Uncle G 10:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sourced. If the google search specifies English and filters out Wikipedia plus Answers.com, then just 11 google hits For the avoidance of doubt, none of them are reliable sources. Addhoc 18:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I could only find the tangential mentions of hum polls being used at IETF meetings, with no real explanation of what a hum poll was, or how it was developed or used. I can't see how either notability or verifiability can be established.--Kubigula (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2007 (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.
