Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:47, 6 May 2007 editAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 09:32, 6 May 2007 edit undoYellowbeard (talk | contribs)220 edits strong deleteNext edit →
Line 11: Line 11:
*'''Comment''' This criterion IS original research because nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion. There is no published paper that uses this criterion. Five of the seven links of this article refer to the rangevoting.org website; but this is not the website of a scientific institute or a private organization; this is the private website of a single person: Warren Smith. The other two links refer to Mike Ossipoff's website resp. to a link that refers to Mike Ossipoff's website. This criterion doesn't exist outside Mike Ossipoff's and Warren Smith's fantasy. It is true that they are very active in the Internet; but this is not an argument for saying that this criterion isn't original research. ] 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Comment''' This criterion IS original research because nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion. There is no published paper that uses this criterion. Five of the seven links of this article refer to the rangevoting.org website; but this is not the website of a scientific institute or a private organization; this is the private website of a single person: Warren Smith. The other two links refer to Mike Ossipoff's website resp. to a link that refers to Mike Ossipoff's website. This criterion doesn't exist outside Mike Ossipoff's and Warren Smith's fantasy. It is true that they are very active in the Internet; but this is not an argument for saying that this criterion isn't original research. ] 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Warning to Yellowbeard''' I just changed your "Strong Delete" into a comment. You can only vote once. Please stop attempting to game this AfD.--] 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Warning to Yellowbeard''' I just changed your "Strong Delete" into a comment. You can only vote once. Please stop attempting to game this AfD.--] 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
**In so far as I have signed my comments appropriately, it is nonsense to claim that I was "attempting to game this AfD". ] 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' but on the understanding that it is expanded and referenced. ] 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' but on the understanding that it is expanded and referenced. ] 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' hello, I happen to know that (1) at least one paper submitted to the Boston Voting Conference contains a theorem about FBC and assuming it is accepted it will then be in the literature in at least one place, (2) rangevoting.org is not "Warren Smith's private website" although it is true that Smith is the largest contributor to it. As far as I know Ossipoff was indeed the inventor of this FBC criterion, but I believe it is an important one, in fact more important than many criteria one can find in the published voting literature, and I doubt many people in that area would disagree with that. FBC has been extensively discussed on voting e-forums for 10 years. 5 May.(]) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> *'''Keep''' hello, I happen to know that (1) at least one paper submitted to the Boston Voting Conference contains a theorem about FBC and assuming it is accepted it will then be in the literature in at least one place, (2) rangevoting.org is not "Warren Smith's private website" although it is true that Smith is the largest contributor to it. As far as I know Ossipoff was indeed the inventor of this FBC criterion, but I believe it is an important one, in fact more important than many criteria one can find in the published voting literature, and I doubt many people in that area would disagree with that. FBC has been extensively discussed on voting e-forums for 10 years. 5 May.(]) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
Line 17: Line 18:
which are both at the rangevoting.org site too. Were one to delve into e-forums on voting over the last 10 years, which are both at the rangevoting.org site too. Were one to delve into e-forums on voting over the last 10 years,
one could also find others who have proven various FBC-related theorems. Probably on the order of 20 others, though I offer no guarantee on the count. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> one could also find others who have proven various FBC-related theorems. Probably on the order of 20 others, though I offer no guarantee on the count. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
**The election methods mailing list is hardly a reputable source. That mailing list is not restricted and not moderated. Every idiot can post his thoughts to that mailing list. ] 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Further Comment''' Some more thoughts and facts occurred to me. *'''Further Comment''' Some more thoughts and facts occurred to me.
(1) The yellowbeard claims that "This criterion isn't discussed in serious, academic circles" and (1) The yellowbeard claims that "This criterion isn't discussed in serious, academic circles" and
Line 30: Line 32:
(end comment). <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> (end comment). <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
*'''Keep''' In the election methods world, just the initials FBC will be immediately recognized and understood. Ossipoff and Smith are two well-known writers in that world, but they are hardly the only people discussing the Favorite Betrayal Criterion, the matter has passed out of their hands into general usage. This is not a comment on the specific article, which I have not reviewed at this time. If the specific article is inappropriate in content, the proper remedy is to edit it, not to delete it. ] 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' In the election methods world, just the initials FBC will be immediately recognized and understood. Ossipoff and Smith are two well-known writers in that world, but they are hardly the only people discussing the Favorite Betrayal Criterion, the matter has passed out of their hands into general usage. This is not a comment on the specific article, which I have not reviewed at this time. If the specific article is inappropriate in content, the proper remedy is to edit it, not to delete it. ] 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
**Ossipoff and Smith are not "well-known writers in the election methods world". Can you name any paper by them that has been published? ] 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:32, 6 May 2007

Favorite betrayal criterion

Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
  • Delete. Original research. Vanity. See here. All links refer directly or indirectly to Mike Ossipoff. This criterion isn't discussed in serious, academic circles. This criterion is not notable. Not a single paper about this criterion has ever been accepted for publication. Furthermore, this article is a repost of a previously-deleted article. Yellowbeard 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yellowbeard, your statements are not cited. FYI, Ossipoff devised the FBC criteria so it follows there would be some mention. There is no vanity there, I don't know where you get that. OR? Hardly.--Fahrenheit451 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Something literally made up in school one day. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ObiterDicta's statement is undocumented and false.--Fahrenheit451 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - User appears to have established beginning basis for verifiability in external links, instead of using cite formatting in a potential References section. Smee 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
  • weak keep The first of those at least using the term in the title. DGG 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This criteria is notable and appears cited frequently on the rangevoting.org website and is NOT original research.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This criterion IS original research because nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion. There is no published paper that uses this criterion. Five of the seven links of this article refer to the rangevoting.org website; but this is not the website of a scientific institute or a private organization; this is the private website of a single person: Warren Smith. The other two links refer to Mike Ossipoff's website resp. to a link that refers to Mike Ossipoff's website. This criterion doesn't exist outside Mike Ossipoff's and Warren Smith's fantasy. It is true that they are very active in the Internet; but this is not an argument for saying that this criterion isn't original research. Yellowbeard 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Warning to Yellowbeard I just changed your "Strong Delete" into a comment. You can only vote once. Please stop attempting to game this AfD.--Fahrenheit451 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but on the understanding that it is expanded and referenced. Darrenhusted 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep hello, I happen to know that (1) at least one paper submitted to the Boston Voting Conference contains a theorem about FBC and assuming it is accepted it will then be in the literature in at least one place, (2) rangevoting.org is not "Warren Smith's private website" although it is true that Smith is the largest contributor to it. As far as I know Ossipoff was indeed the inventor of this FBC criterion, but I believe it is an important one, in fact more important than many criteria one can find in the published voting literature, and I doubt many people in that area would disagree with that. FBC has been extensively discussed on voting e-forums for 10 years. 5 May.(talk) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment Also, the Yellowbeard claim that "nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion" is contradicted by the fact that Forest Simmons used it in one of the links already given in the article, and Kevin Venzke used it in other links (not given in the article, but probably should be added) such as these: http://www.rangevoting.org/VenzkeFBC3.html http://www.rangevoting.org/VenzkePf.html

which are both at the rangevoting.org site too. Were one to delve into e-forums on voting over the last 10 years, one could also find others who have proven various FBC-related theorems. Probably on the order of 20 others, though I offer no guarantee on the count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.79.43 (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

    • The election methods mailing list is hardly a reputable source. That mailing list is not restricted and not moderated. Every idiot can post his thoughts to that mailing list. Yellowbeard 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Further Comment Some more thoughts and facts occurred to me.

(1) The yellowbeard claims that "This criterion isn't discussed in serious, academic circles" and "Not a single paper about this criterion has ever been accepted for publication" appear to be contradicted by this paper: Voting Systems That Combine Approval and Preference, by professors S.J.Brams and M.R.Sanver, published in book Steven J. Brams, William V. Gehrlein, and Fred S. Roberts (eds.), The Mathematics of Preference, Choice, and Order: Essays in Honor of Peter C. Fishburn. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer 2006, which I found in a google search. It is very difficult to make a claim of vast generality that something "is not discussed" and is not in published literature. In order to do so, one has to have been privy to every discussion and seen every published paper. Evidently, yellowbeard has not. (2) The wikipedia article in question consists of stating a definition. As such, I do not see how it can be claimed to be "original research." This contradicts yellowbeard's claim that it is original research. (end comment). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.79.43 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Keep In the election methods world, just the initials FBC will be immediately recognized and understood. Ossipoff and Smith are two well-known writers in that world, but they are hardly the only people discussing the Favorite Betrayal Criterion, the matter has passed out of their hands into general usage. This is not a comment on the specific article, which I have not reviewed at this time. If the specific article is inappropriate in content, the proper remedy is to edit it, not to delete it. Abd 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ossipoff and Smith are not "well-known writers in the election methods world". Can you name any paper by them that has been published? Yellowbeard 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories: