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 interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:44, 3 May 2007 editYellowbeard (talk | contribs)220 edits Creating deletion discussion page for Favorite betrayal criterion  Latest revision as of 16:03, 30 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Added missing end tags to discussion close footer to reduce Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(40 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep.''' ] 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
:{{la|Favorite betrayal criterion}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Favorite betrayal criterion}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
'''Delete'''. Original research. Vanity. See ]. 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. ] 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Original research. Vanity. See ]. 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. ] 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.--] 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Something literally ]. ] <small>( ] • ] • ] )</small> 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' ObiterDicta's statement is undocumented and false.--] 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. ] 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
*'''weak keep''' The first of those at least using the term in the title. ''']''' 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.--] 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. ] 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)
**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)
***Signing your posts is not the issue, you attempted to game this AfD by VOTING TWICE.--] 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
****], you underestimate the intelligence of ordinary Wikipedians when you say that they don't know that the same signature refers to the same user. ] 08:49, 10 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 -->

*'''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. <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.
(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). <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)
**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)
**Obviously, this AfD has been hijacked by Warren Smith devotees . Interestingly, even they are unable to name a paper by Ossipoff or Smith that has been published. This demonstrates that the real aim of this article is to promote the views of some political sect. ] 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
***Yellowbeard, that is what you want to believe. That fact is, that there are admin's and user's signatures I see here who are definitely NOT range voting "devotees". You are obviously upset that the consensus for this AfD went against you.--] 05:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
****], so you say that the task of was to "upset" me? ] 08:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
::Yellowbeard, I don't know who Warren Smith is, and I'm not a devotee, but this article is on its third go round at AfD and I would like it to be expanded so a fourth AfD nomination doesn't happen. If you think puppetry is happening (of the meat or sock variety) then go report it. ] 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
'''Strong Keep.''' FBC is a widely known and important criterion, try googling it yourself. It shows up, for instance, in on the site of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. I presume they were discussing what methods to use to make internal decisions. ] 18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*Well, is already mentioned in the article. Obviously, it has been written by a Mike Ossipoff devotee. This presentation doesn't contain own ideas, but only links to Mike Ossipoff's website. ] 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
* So maybe you're a deletionist Yellowbeard, this article has survived two AfDs so maybe it has merit, but it needs more sources and expanding as a fourth AfD is not needed. ] 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
*No, this article hasn't survived two AfDs. The result of the ] was '''delete'''. But then ] reposted this article. ] 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
::Well, this is the third AfD, so by definition is has survived two AfDs, the first may have been a group AfD but this article is still here, if you don't want it recreated then I don't know why on the second AfD you didn't ask to salt the earth. ] 10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::], the result of the ] was '''delete'''. But then ] reposted this article. You wrote: "This is the third AfD, so by definition is has survived two AfDs." This is nonsense. What you are actually saying is that reposting a deleted article is the same as surviving an AfD.
:::You wrote: "This article is still here." No, this article isn't still there. This article is there again, because ] reposted this article after it had been killed by an AfD. ] 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The article has verifiable sources. Plus, I disagree with Yellowbeard's canvassing for "delete" votes on user talk pages. ] / ] 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
**And I disagree with ]'s attempt to gather ] about other users. ] 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. By the way, neither Mike Ossipoff nor myself (Kevin Venzke) are connected with rangevoting.org. I just find myself quoted there. For what it's worth, I don't even particularly share the goals of that website. (I have my own page at http://nodesiege.tripod.com/elections/ where I discuss this criterion.) ] 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
**I am still waiting that someone mentions a published paper that uses this criterion. ] 11:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 16:03, 30 January 2022

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 keep. Sandstein 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
    • Obviously, this AfD has been hijacked by Warren Smith devotees . Interestingly, even they are unable to name a paper by Ossipoff or Smith that has been published. This demonstrates that the real aim of this article is to promote the views of some political sect. Yellowbeard 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Yellowbeard, I don't know who Warren Smith is, and I'm not a devotee, but this article is on its third go round at AfD and I would like it to be expanded so a fourth AfD nomination doesn't happen. If you think puppetry is happening (of the meat or sock variety) then go report it. Darrenhusted 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. FBC is a widely known and important criterion, try googling it yourself. It shows up, for instance, in this presentation on the site of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. I presume they were discussing what methods to use to make internal decisions. Auros 18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the third AfD, so by definition is has survived two AfDs, the first may have been a group AfD but this article is still here, if you don't want it recreated then I don't know why on the second AfD you didn't ask to salt the earth. Darrenhusted 10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Darrenhusted, the result of the first AfD was delete. But then Fahrenheit451 reposted this article. You wrote: "This is the third AfD, so by definition is has survived two AfDs." This is nonsense. What you are actually saying is that reposting a deleted article is the same as surviving an AfD.
You wrote: "This article is still here." No, this article isn't still there. This article is there again, because Fahrenheit451 reposted this article after it had been killed by an AfD. Yellowbeard 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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.