203:
for something called Yep Papa!, and was deleted accordingly. It has come back without mention of that specifically but otherwise near identical in its focus. The idea of real-time voting is not especially novel and takes many forms and names, and yet the article is very narrowly focussed, eg the
204:
specific terminology and detail such as "the first step is to download a mobile phone app". If you strip out such specifics and anything which needs referencing (and none of it is referenced at all) then you end up with nothing much more than a
429:
The article is terrible and lacks references, but the concept seems to be notable enough. What distinguishes this from keypad polling or televoting seems to be that voting/sharing here is carried out using an app on smart phones.
164:
340:
268:, or something similar. This isn't a hoax, but it also isn't new. Marketers have been doing variations of this for decades, and a mobile phone app has never been a requirement.
158:
316:
119:
124:
92:
87:
96:
79:
439:
179:
146:
302:
278:
17:
230:
Not only is the article poorly written, but also has no references o back it up, which may indicate that it may be a hoax. --
140:
457:
443:
417:
386:
356:
332:
307:
283:
247:
221:
61:
478:
136:
40:
83:
453:
435:
344:
320:
217:
186:
75:
67:
57:
474:
449:
382:
213:
36:
413:
233:
298:
274:
209:
172:
448:
What makes you think the concept is notable enough? It needs to be reliably established to be so.
292:
Changed !vote to delete; if there's no consensus to redirect then it should be deleted, not kept.
152:
431:
196:
205:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
398:
378:
367:
409:
294:
270:
261:
200:
113:
265:
401:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
370:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
467:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
341:
list of
Behavioural science-related deletion discussions
109:
105:
101:
377:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
171:
408:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
195:This is an interesting case. It started life (at
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
481:). No further edits should be made to this page.
317:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
185:
8:
339:Note: This debate has been included in the
315:Note: This debate has been included in the
212:at that. As such, there is no article here.
338:
314:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
208:- and probably one that is a
498:
458:21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
444:19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
418:21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
387:04:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
308:00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
62:00:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
470:Please do not modify it.
357:16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
333:16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
284:03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
248:22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
222:19:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
206:dictionary definition
199:) as an umambiguous
76:Live-opinion Sharing
68:Live-opinion Sharing
420:
389:
359:
335:
246:
489:
472:
407:
403:
376:
372:
353:
350:
347:
329:
326:
323:
306:
282:
245:
244:
241:
240:
237:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
48:The result was
34:
497:
496:
492:
491:
490:
488:
487:
486:
485:
479:deletion review
468:
396:
365:
351:
348:
345:
327:
324:
321:
293:
269:
238:
235:
234:
231:
132:
123:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
495:
493:
484:
483:
463:
462:
461:
460:
423:
422:
421:
405:
404:
393:
392:
391:
390:
374:
373:
362:
361:
360:
336:
312:
311:
310:
287:
286:
262:Keypad polling
251:
250:
193:
192:
129:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
494:
482:
480:
476:
471:
465:
464:
459:
455:
451:
450:RichardOSmith
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:Life of Riley
428:
425:
424:
419:
415:
411:
406:
402:
400:
395:
394:
388:
384:
380:
375:
371:
369:
364:
363:
358:
354:
342:
337:
334:
330:
318:
313:
309:
304:
300:
296:
291:
290:
289:
288:
285:
280:
276:
272:
267:
263:
259:
258:
253:
252:
249:
243:
242:
229:
226:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
214:RichardOSmith
211:
207:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
469:
466:
426:
397:
366:
352:PEANUTBUTTER
328:PEANUTBUTTER
256:
254:
232:
227:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
54:IronGargoyle
49:
47:
31:
28:
379:Crisco 1492
159:free images
410:Tom Morris
266:Televoting
475:talk page
210:neologism
197:Live vote
37:talk page
477:or in a
399:Relisted
368:Relisted
303:Contribs
279:Contribs
257:Redirect
120:View log
39:or in a
255:Delete
239:Watcher
236:Gourami
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
228:Delete
137:Google
97:delete
50:Delete
427:Keep.
343:. ★☆
319:. ★☆
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
454:talk
414:talk
383:talk
346:DUCK
322:DUCK
299:Talk
295:Dori
275:Talk
271:Dori
218:talk
201:plug
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
430:•••
355:☆★
331:☆★
260:to
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
456:)
442:)
416:)
385:)
349:IS
325:IS
301:☯
277:⁘
264:,
220:)
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
452:(
440:C
438:–
436:T
434:(
412:(
381:(
305:☽
297:☾
281:☽
273:☾
216:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.