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 no consensus.  Sandstein  05:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth University Polling Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable organization of only local interest. Claims about coverage are made but not substantiated. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP (1) Please define "local interest". The Polling Institute is active in six Mid-Atlantic states (entry has been updated). (2) Please note that there is precedent for this - other nearly identical institutes (e.g. Franklin & Marshall College Poll, Siena Research Institute, Marist Poll) have wiki pages. (3) In terms of notable -- A Google Web search conducted on July 24, 2011 using the limited phrase +"Monmouth University Polling Institute" turned up more than 46,000 entries! Limiting this to just Google News over the past 6 years finds more than 800 entries, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Business Week, Bloomberg News, Politico, Reuters, Philadelphia Inquirer, and more. (4) Regardless of the above, this qualifies as an encyclopedia entry in compliance with Wiki policy Mupipdm (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but how many Google hits you get doesn't mean anything. Maybe Marist Poll doesn't deserve an article either--but that's beside the point, given WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. So no, it is not (yet) an entry in compliance with our policies, at least not until reliable sources say so. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were only one or two similar entries then WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may apply. But multiple entries (and I only gave 3 examples -- there are many more) suggests that Wiki community considers the notability standard to be met. Furthermore, this is not the only justification for this article, but just one piece of the evidence for Keep status. Must be taken together with others (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It might not be the size of, say the U of M's Survey Research Center, but it's still sizable, has been cited by major national news sources as their primary source, does federal grant supported research, has won notable "awards" (being deemed most accurate, ect.) and has notable faculty. Each of these alone wouldn't necessarily qualify it for an article but taken as a set it is amply notable. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give any examples? Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:ORG. "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." And "Nationally famous local organizations: Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, this mention in The New York Times doesn't qualify as significant coverage, which is what is required in WP:N. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is just one example: Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "4. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." Please see following - http://www.google.com/#q=%2B%22monmouth+university+polling+institute%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GWktTpSGF8220AH6nszkDg&ved=0CBgQpwUoCw&source=lnt&tbs=sbd:1%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F25%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F25%2F2011&tbm=nws&fp=1&biw=1366&bih=575&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those hits are evidence more of Patrick Murray's notability than the institute he works for, in my opinion. BTW, Mupipdm, your username seems to have fallen out of your signature. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The poll's director appears to be quoted extensively in a number of published articles. One also gathers that he or someone close to him is the primary author of this article, hence the COI tag. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP THE PAGE: This poll is quite well known and, while it most often tracks issues of significance to the NY, NJ, PA area it also tracks issues of national significance, most notably during Presidential election cycles (which last 1-2 years these days). This poll is also mentioned in the RealClearPolitics, Pollster.com, 538.com averages and should thus be considered a poll worthy of mention in the online encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.159.146 (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This polling institute is a major source of information for the state of New Jersey (the 11th largest state in the Union by population), so while that is in some sense local, it is still produces data that is important to approx. 8.5 million people. It also, as mentioned before, provides national polling that is followed during presidential cycles by national sources (RealClearPolitics:example http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_mccain_vs_obama-250.html , and Pollster.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.206.130 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The refs appear to be trivial and simply say what polls they have carried out etc. This should be relisted as the other contributors are a blocked account for spamming this page, and IP editors mostly. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist comment: the non-SPA opinions so far are by Drmies and Szzuk (delete) and HominidMachinae (keep).  Sandstein  06:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I rarely support article on local institutions, or institutes within a university, , but I looked at the article first It seems to have more than local interest, and its polls are covered by reliable sources. That's the referencing likely to be found and all that is needed--an institute is notable for the work it does. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment. No discussion after last good faith relisting, let's mature the discussion a bit more before closing. BusterD (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2011 (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.