Talk:2009 Houston mayoral election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles

United States: Texas Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

On polling[edit]

First, let me say that there is precedent to include polling in articles dealing with mayoral elections. A similar article on the New York City mayoral election this year has such a section. However, the current polls used in this poll are so old (multiple months), that they are of little or no value. As such, until more recent polls are found, I am removing the polling section. Unitanode 23:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recent poll (July 17)

[1]

Houstonbuildings (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced poll was conducted online, which as a methodology does not engender encyclopedic reliability, and the cited article actually questions the poll's validity. This does not appear to be reliable encyclopedic material. I propose the elimination of the polling section until reliable polls with reliable citations can be found. Afwm1985 (talk) 01:46, 03 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the May 5 poll is an online website poll that affirmatively states it is not scientific (obvious though that may be). The May 1 poll is from the same online source as the July 17 poll, and the May 1 cite also disputes is legitimacy. So, basically, all three polls are online and cite to sources disputing their accuracy. I mean, I agree with Unitanode that there is nothing wrong with polls on Wikipedia--I actually kind of like them--but they should have to be reliable with reliable cites. All three of these polls have neither. Also, consider the NY elections page Unitanode cites for precedent which only lists polls from reputable polling sources. I'm sure there were plenty of online polls during those elections, but they are not listed for the same reasons these polls should be deleted. Afwm1985 (talk) 11:11, 04 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polls while not scientific, are the only polls that are in use for the election, and there probably will not be any scientific polls before the election. There basic content I find to adequate and possibly one should just make a note that the polls are not scientific. I motion for the polls to be replaced. Houstonbuildings (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand the point of using useless polls. I mean, I could go start a website, throw up a poll on it, and use this page as precedent for citing to it in an encyclopedia.

Encyclopedias exist to collect and present useful and relevant information in an accessible location. These polls provide irrelevant and useless information, and thereby reduce the value of Wikipedia. In fact, they really provide no information at all, being little better than a collection of random numbers.

Furthermore, even if these polls were marginally useful, many (most?) people will probably not bother to check this discussion page or the cites to see that the polls are unreliable; they will just assume they are. This, in a sense, would be a positive reflection on Wikipedia. But the more people who feel compelled to check cites/discussions because of unreliable polls like these, the worse for Wikipedia. Afwm1985 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view on the polls[edit]

These "polls" are not suitable for inclusion. They make no claims as to being scientific. In fact, they specifically note that they are not scientific. They are not close to being suitable for inclusion in chart form, and would be very dubious for inclusion even as a text mention. Please do not reinsert them. (For the record, I don't know any of these candidates, and I'm not from Houston or anywhere near Houston, so I'm completely unbiased as far as who wins this election.) Unit Anode 12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Houston mayoral election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090908003339/http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_radio-mayoral_election_2009.php to http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_radio-mayoral_election_2009.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Houston mayoral election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]