Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Asset voting: 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 12:01, 29 May 2008 editAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →Asset voting: ultimately, we do need an article on Carroll's political work, and it could be that merge would work, particularly then.← Previous edit Revision as of 12:22, 29 May 2008 edit undoYellowbeard (talk | contribs)220 edits Undid revision 215717802 by Abd (talk)Next edit →
Line 7: Line 7:
*'''Keep.''' Be careful about this AfD. See ]. This is an ] dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to ], such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting ], the ], etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many ] articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by ] in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the ], and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When ] was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--] (]) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep.''' Be careful about this AfD. See ]. This is an ] dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to ], such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting ], the ], etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many ] articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by ] in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the ], and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When ] was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--] (]) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Could do with expanding though ] (]) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Could do with expanding though ] (]) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''delete''' - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --] (]) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*'''Merge/Redirect''' to ].--''''']] ]''''' 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) *'''Merge/Redirect''' to ].--''''']] ]''''' 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe. The Center is not known for Asset Voting and doesn't promote it, it just happens that one of the founders of the Center re-invented Asset voting, web-publishing in 2004. The Carroll material is far more interesting to me, and has ].--] (]) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC) ::Maybe. The Center is not known for Asset Voting and doesn't promote it, it just happens that one of the founders of the Center re-invented Asset voting, web-publishing in 2004. The Carroll material is far more interesting to me, and has ].--] (]) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:22, 29 May 2008

Asset voting

Asset voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. Original research. Neologism. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article has been created by Sarsaparilla who has been blocked indefinitely. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Be careful about this AfD. See Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to Instant-runoff voting, such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting Bayesian regret, the Center for Range Voting, etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many Voting systems articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by Lewis Carroll in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the Center for Range Voting, and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When Asset voting was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--Abd (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Could do with expanding though Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --87.114.131.46 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Center for Range Voting.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. The Center is not known for Asset Voting and doesn't promote it, it just happens that one of the founders of the Center re-invented Asset voting, web-publishing in 2004. The Carroll material is far more interesting to me, and has reliable source.--Abd (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • An academic self-publishing papers on his webspace at his place of employment does not represent "considerable scholarly discussion" - not in the slightest. Have any of those paper been published in peer-reviewed journals? Conference proceedings? What you have listed is just plain old original research. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted. Celarnor 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The IP edit has been acknowledged on AN/I (section diff as being from the blocked User:Fredrick day. I have deleted other comments he made in this AfD, none of them add arguments not presented by others. They may be seen in History, and if anyone thinks them relevant, I'd suggest putting them in Talk for this page. I left this one because Celarnor had made comment on it. Fd's His comment about "place of employment" was pure speculation, it's not true, but I would agree with him that there has not been "considerable scholarly discussion." There has been considerable discussion outside of peer-reviewed journals, there is self-published material from a notable expert, possibly usable with attribution, and some reliable source exists for the Lewis Carroll connection.--Abd (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well,, the fifth paper might be about asset voting, I can't tell from the summary. Perhaps Celarnor can help us out. "Asset Voting" refers to candidates receiving votes being able to reassign them as if they were their "assets," an idea which was stated first by Carroll. Focusing on Warren Smith is a mistake. He's a notable voting systems advocate (which might make his papers usable in certain limited ways), and he independently invented it, apparently, but Carroll was there more than a hundred years before.--Abd (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter who wrote them? If I were to look up all the important papers on string theory, I would find that most of them were by those who created the field. That's only natural. Celarnor 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Eh? you've pretty much just established it's OR. Scholarly debate is not a single academic publishing unreviewed papers on his personal webspace. Scholarly debate is established by the response of other academics to works published - generally as conference proceedings or in peer review journals or as citations within either of those types of works. What you have selected, in nowway, shape or form represents academia discourse. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.64.105 (talk)
  • Comment.I've written, in , a discussion of what I know about the topic, with some sources. The best source is the paper by Duncan Black that is referenced from the Article. While the term "Asset Voting" was not used by Carroll, he uses quite the same analogy to describe it, candidates may "treat these votes as if they were their own personal property." --Abd (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Then it shouldn't be used - what you describe represents original research and novel synthesis on your part. The source has to make an EXPLICIT linkage, you cannot do it and claim he uses "quite the same analogy". --87.114.139.108 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowbeard (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. This article should be kept since it gives a valuable description of one of the election systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topjur01 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment.I posted a neutral notice to an off-wiki mailing list, Election Methods, knowing that many Misplaced Pages editors knowledgeable about voting systems read that list -- and this is a neutral list. Later, I'll post a link to that notice. In the meanwhile, Wikiproject Voting Systems should be notified as well, I do that later if nobody gets to it before me.--Abd (talk)
I have also placed a notice at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Voting systems .diff The email notice disclosed above may be seen at and see also Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Asset voting--Abd (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there was canvassing there, Calton. There is a seeking of comment, evidence, and argument from experts, who may be far more familiar with the literature than I or anyone else here. In any case, here is a link to the email:. Canvassers don't normally announce what they have done to the AfD.... but if it is improper, I'm sure that a closing admin can deal with it. --Abd (talk)
  • Delete - Little sign of actual real-world impact or notice, and plenty of sign of using Misplaced Pages to promote someone's fringe idea. --Calton | Talk 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Little real world impact or value as judged by uninvolved/unrelated third party sources. Existing sources are mostly tied to this topic's proponent, and not valid here for notabillity... so, delete. And canvassing? Yuck. rootology (T) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, canvassing, Yuck. Did Rootology see any evidence of violation of WP:CANVASS before making this comment? As to the sources, has Rootology looked at the Lewis Carroll sources? I agree, it's easy to conclude that there is too little out there, particularly if you only pay attention to the claims about Warren Smith and the Center for Range Voting. Both of them are now notable, Smith is an expert, and original research by notable experts *may* under some circumstances be usable, with attribution, not claimed as fact. There is a reason why Rule Number One isIgnore all rules: rigid adherence to rules, no matter how good they generally are, can harm the project, and our standard of judgment isn't conformance to guidelines, but community practice and consensus. Guidelines, when well written, tell us what we can, more or less, expect to see when the community decides. I voted Keep, not based on the strictest application of WP:RS but in the interest of having a verifiable, reliable, informative, and interesting encyclopedia. And the purpose of this AfD is to determine if the community agrees. I trust the ultimate decision, particularly given that the fuss is attracting wider attention. AfD is dangerous when only a few rule-bound and distracted editors make snap judgments about topics they know nothing about, based on a wikilawyered nomination by an SPA with an axe to grind.--Abd (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — The topic clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the sake of completeness of our coverage of voting systems. JamesMLane t c 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. We had a vandal a while back who was making up "voting" schemes and writing hoax articles about them. He was finally blocked for his vandalism but in some parting comments, he asserted that we had not yet found and deleted all of his hoaxes. (He used a number of IP and sockpuppet accounts to carry out the vandalism.) I have not yet had time to research this particular article but I would urge all participants to be particularly skeptical about unsourced or poorly sourced articles on the topic of voting. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to a new article on C. L. Dodgson's (Lewis Carroll's) work on voting methods. As far as I can tell, Misplaced Pages includes only passing references to this subject -- including a link in the Voting system article to an article on Dodgson's method that doesn't exist yet. (Dodgson's method is a Condorcet-compliant single-winner method completely distinct from asset voting.) The main article on his life and career doesn't mention this aspect of his work at all, and it should be covered. As things stand right now, Warren Smith's re-invention is, I think, original research until it is available in sources that Misplaced Pages recognizes. But the article I have mind would need to mention Smith in connection with the name, asset voting, because apparently Dodgson himself didn't name his creation.Bob Richard (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If the new article existed, I'd be happy to go with Merge. In the long run, this idea of Dodgson could be the most enduring of his contributions, but you'd have only my opinion for that. Tell you what, I'll get it published and someone can put it in. What a great idea! Anyway, for now, we do need an article, there is plenty of source for it, and I have the books on order. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Still not notable despite the campaign to pass it off as such. Where are the sources other than an article describing the basic idea without calling it asset voting. Try spending less time campaigning here and on ANI and more time adding sources. Also, support what Rootology said above. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this (last part) appears to be a personal comment directed at me, I'll respond to it in Talk for this page.--Abd (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that the nominator has been editing the article to remove citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that Colonel Warden has been editing the article (after the nomination) to add citations although the added citations have nothing to do with asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Improving an article while it is at AFD is normal practise. Your contention that the citations are improper OR is a fair point but other editors should have the opportunity to review these sources while forming their opinion of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Colonel Warden, did you read the citations you added? Adding citations that have nothing to do with an article is not "improving an article". Yellowbeard (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I read enough of them to satisfy myself that they are not spurious. If you wish to challenge them I suggest that you add appropriate tags to the article, indicating your concerns. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Categories: