Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Tbouricius (talk | contribs) weak Keep |
Steve Smith (talk | contribs) adding note about blocked user |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<s>*'''Keep''' and cleanup - There are plenty of references to establish [[WP:notability|notability]], and the main article is already too big to merge everything useful from this one. Still needs a great deal of cleanup, though, starting with the currently segregated layout. --[[User:Explodicle|Explodicle]] ([[User talk:Explodicle|talk]]) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</s> |
<s>*'''Keep''' and cleanup - There are plenty of references to establish [[WP:notability|notability]], and the main article is already too big to merge everything useful from this one. Still needs a great deal of cleanup, though, starting with the currently segregated layout. --[[User:Explodicle|Explodicle]] ([[User talk:Explodicle|talk]]) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</s> |
||
:*'''Redirect''' to [[Instant-runoff voting]] - After [[Talk:Instant-runoff voting controversies#Segregated sections|discussing the matter]], it's clear that the [[WP:pro and con lists|pro and con lists]] aren't getting fixed any time soon, and the article was created just to prevent edit warring. Disputes can be resolved on [[Talk:Instant-runoff voting]] without edit wars. Once the section at [[Instant-runoff voting]] is ready, it can be expanded to its own article. If the IRV article is too long, a more mature section should be spun off instead. --[[User:Explodicle|Explodicle]] ([[User talk:Explodicle|talk]]) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
:*'''Redirect''' to [[Instant-runoff voting]] - After [[Talk:Instant-runoff voting controversies#Segregated sections|discussing the matter]], it's clear that the [[WP:pro and con lists|pro and con lists]] aren't getting fixed any time soon, and the article was created just to prevent edit warring. Disputes can be resolved on [[Talk:Instant-runoff voting]] without edit wars. Once the section at [[Instant-runoff voting]] is ready, it can be expanded to its own article. If the IRV article is too long, a more mature section should be spun off instead. --[[User:Explodicle|Explodicle]] ([[User talk:Explodicle|talk]]) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Delete''' for reasons stated - POV article now being defended by someone a) with a conflict of interest and b) trying to muddy the waters by accusing people of being sockpuppets. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.34.110|87.114.34.110]] ([[User talk:87.114.34.110|talk]]) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) <s>I struck this comment, because this IP is the blocked [[User:Fredrick day]]. The only sock accusation here was from the nominator. Sock puppetry is irrelevant to this AfD, which would proceed even if, for example, it were proven that the nominator were Yellowbeard, and I don't think that likely.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</s> IP addressess are commonly used by many individuals, which is why unlike user names they cannot be blocked permanently. You do not know that this is the user you claim it to be. Try something like that again and I'll report you. [[User:QuirkyAndSuch|QuirkyAndSuch]] ([[User talk:QuirkyAndSuch|talk]]) 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
'''Delete''' for reasons stated - POV article now being defended by someone a) with a conflict of interest and b) trying to muddy the waters by accusing people of being sockpuppets. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.34.110|87.114.34.110]] ([[User talk:87.114.34.110|talk]]) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) <s>I struck this comment, because this IP is the blocked [[User:Fredrick day]]. The only sock accusation here was from the nominator. Sock puppetry is irrelevant to this AfD, which would proceed even if, for example, it were proven that the nominator were Yellowbeard, and I don't think that likely.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</s> IP addressess are commonly used by many individuals, which is why unlike user names they cannot be blocked permanently. You do not know that this is the user you claim it to be. Try something like that again and I'll report you. [[User:QuirkyAndSuch|QuirkyAndSuch]] ([[User talk:QuirkyAndSuch|talk]]) 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)<sub>Note to closer: the I.P. in question has made no other edits outside of this topic, and, based on I.P. range, is almost certainly indef-blocked user Fredrick Day. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)</sub> |
||
*'''Weak delete''': the article is a POV fork. It's admittedly done better than most POV forks, and I did edit it some time back to nudge it closer to NPOV, but at its heart it is still an essential violation of WP forking rules, and it still shows a good amount of POV bias. The choice of sources perhaps shows this best. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Weak delete''': the article is a POV fork. It's admittedly done better than most POV forks, and I did edit it some time back to nudge it closer to NPOV, but at its heart it is still an essential violation of WP forking rules, and it still shows a good amount of POV bias. The choice of sources perhaps shows this best. [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:34, 15 May 2008
- Instant-runoff voting controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability of the day's AFDs. Please add long comments to that page while retaining "delete"/"keep"/etc. comments here. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article was created for POV purposes. There are very few references (10), and all are weak. Of the few references given one is "electowiki", a wiki (which are not considered credible sources per wikipedia policy). Another reference is written by the "Center for Range Voting" a POV group. And another source is "Behind the ballot box: A citizen's guide to voting systems" by Amy, Douglas J. This book has only been cited 3 times, and has no positive reviews, is not an important work, and not considered influencial in the field of political science or international relations. This is also a fork article that draws attention by claiming it's about "controversies". Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have notified all editors about this AfD, who either voted in the previous AfD, or edited the subject article or its Talk page, who had not been previously notified or commented, and who are not blocked or vanished. That's a total of 12 editors, some of whom may have long been inactive.--Abd (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - for reasons stated above. I should also mention that the creator of this article User:Captain Zyrain has had an administrator express that they believe this editor is a sockpuppet (see editors page). Another strong supporter to keep this article User:Abd has mentioned in the previous nomination for deletion that they are involved with the Center for Range Voting as an advisor. The Center for Range Voting is highly critical of instant-runoff voting. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork, no demonstrated need for a separate article on the controversies, any notable and verifiable controversies can more than adequately be covered at instant-runoff voting. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. A POV fork and an obvious OR magnet; a flawed concept for the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. For all of the reasons listed above. --Endless Dan 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Nominator introduces no new arguments not considered in prior AfD. Article was created with editor consensus (including pro- and con-IRV editors) to allow deeper exploration of controversy on the topic than would otherwise be appropriate and necessary in the main article. However, I'd be personally happy with Merge and Redirect, though it could lead to edit warring in the main article. Defects in sourcing -- there are fewer sources than I remember but I have not reviewed the history -- should be addressed through ordinary editorial process, by removal or proper sourcing of unsourced material, and are irrelevant to notability unless no reliable sources exist. Controversies over voting methods can be quite complex and the necessary depth to report on them inappropriate for the main article; this is a classic reason for a Controversies article, allowing summary style to take back what is most notable to the main article. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Undecided Yes, there was an old deletion debate that failed. I'm not prepared to defend content quality (since I think this article is largely poorly written, 1/3 trash thought, even as I made my small attempts to improve), but needs improvements is not a reason for deletion to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
*Keep and cleanup - There are plenty of references to establish notability, and the main article is already too big to merge everything useful from this one. Still needs a great deal of cleanup, though, starting with the currently segregated layout. --Explodicle (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Instant-runoff voting - After discussing the matter, it's clear that the pro and con lists aren't getting fixed any time soon, and the article was created just to prevent edit warring. Disputes can be resolved on Talk:Instant-runoff voting without edit wars. Once the section at Instant-runoff voting is ready, it can be expanded to its own article. If the IRV article is too long, a more mature section should be spun off instead. --Explodicle (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated - POV article now being defended by someone a) with a conflict of interest and b) trying to muddy the waters by accusing people of being sockpuppets. --87.114.34.110 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I struck this comment, because this IP is the blocked User:Fredrick day. The only sock accusation here was from the nominator. Sock puppetry is irrelevant to this AfD, which would proceed even if, for example, it were proven that the nominator were Yellowbeard, and I don't think that likely.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC) IP addressess are commonly used by many individuals, which is why unlike user names they cannot be blocked permanently. You do not know that this is the user you claim it to be. Try something like that again and I'll report you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Note to closer: the I.P. in question has made no other edits outside of this topic, and, based on I.P. range, is almost certainly indef-blocked user Fredrick Day. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete: the article is a POV fork. It's admittedly done better than most POV forks, and I did edit it some time back to nudge it closer to NPOV, but at its heart it is still an essential violation of WP forking rules, and it still shows a good amount of POV bias. The choice of sources perhaps shows this best. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No opinion if it should be deleted or not, but if it is, any npov, referenced, sections left should be merged as appropriate. — xaosflux Talk 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. Do not delete. A decent article could be written, but it hasn’t been done. The target article doesn’t even have a good summary. Improve the controversy section of Instant-runoff voting before trying to expand into a whole article.
- Keep The CRV is an advocacy group, not whatever a "POV group" as nominator wants to portray. Quirky has been several allegations about the title of the article, a book used as a reference without supplying anything substantive, any proof of the allegations. This was a very ill-conceived nomination.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete andMerge any relevant content into the main article on IRV, and turn this page into a redirect. Controversy forks are POV/troll magnets and are generally not advised. I haven't seen nor can I think of any reasons why this specific fork should be an exception. Yilloslime (t) 04:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)- This would violate the GFDL. See WP:MAD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I have changed my !vote to Merge and redirect. Yilloslime (t) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
KEEP --
- "This article was created for POV purposes." Which POV purposes, pray tell?
- "Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article." Please explain to this simpleton exactly how this is all so misleading.
--NBahn (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Instant Runoff Voting. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disputes over what should and should not be included. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- No opinion: the article is educational, but an argument can be made that it should be merged and redirected, and one of the more severe criticisms of instant-runoff voting might benefit from further explanation. I have gone over to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Voting Systems to recruit an expert to review the article and join this discussion. Also asked at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Human rights because I thought that I might find neutral, unbiased editors there. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a notable topic and we can't expect to cover everything in a single article. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources don't nearly cover the claims made in the article, and this is inherent to the scope of the article because it's being used as a vehicle for opinions, not facts. It's plausible that there could be some encyclopedic content with this title -- such as about controversies that have occurred in the real world due to implementation of IRV. If this article were given an accurate title, it would be "Arguments about implementing IRV, especially in the United States". And then it would be deleted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. The IRV article provides the relevant context. The content of this article needs to be condensed to form the "controversy" section of that article. JFW | T@lk 09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe The article is quite defective (sorry I haven't had time to continue working on it), but if it can be brought up to snuff, on balance I think it should exist. It definitely cannot be merged into the main article, as it is ten-times too long to be merged into that article and it would be nearly impossible to settle on what pieces should survive, resuming an edit war. My biggest complaint is that this article gives way too much space to arguments that are outside the discussion actually being conducted on the ground, whcih is contrasting IRV with current voting methods (plurality and two-round runoffs). Some comaprison with other theoretical voting methods (such as Condorcet, Borda and Approval) should be in the article, but these are minor sidelines compared to the real-world controversy over IRV, and should be a minor portion of this article. Some editors want to use this article to show why their favorite theoretical voting method is better than IRV. That sort of "debate" is more suited to an article comparing all voting methods, rather than an article about IRV.Tbouricius (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)