Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet-Hare Method

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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condorcet-Hare Method

Non-notable voting system, most likely an invention of the article's author. 0 Google hits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My nomination now also includes Condorcet-Smith-Hare method. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There's also Condorcet-Smith-Hare method. Condorcet and Hare both check out, and the author of this page looks responsible to me. This is more a candidate for a verify tag than deletion. --Lockley 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peyna's research. --Lockley 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm pretty sure we deleted something very similar to both of these articles a few months ago, but I can't track down the AfDs. Peyna 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I located the related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Condorcet_Instant_Runoff_Voting. Peyna 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another related past-AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Condorcet_Approval_Instant_Runoff_Voting. Peyna 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The content of Condorcet-Hare Method looks very similar to what was the content of the aforementioned pages that were previously deleted. Would need an admin to verify that for sure. Peyna 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need an admin? Do admins somehow inherently know more about voting systems? As the original nominator, I can confirm that a similar method has been proposed before. I don't know if it's the same proposer. It actually makes me want to write a page called Hybrid voting method, describing how many "new" voting methods can be created by combining rules from different methods, and how such methods are rarely used in actual voting. Then we could just speedy redirect this kind of thing there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins can view deleted content and confirm that it is the same content that was posted before. Peyna 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As far as I know, the Australian Democrats use a Condorcet-IRV hybrid method, the so-called Hallett system [1]. Markus Schulze 00:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting - I didn't know about that. So there should be an article on Hallett's method, not this guy's reinvention of it. I guess that can be done by renaming and rewriting. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Australian electoral system, the electoral system used is instant-runoff, which is non-Condorcet. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was talking about a political party that is called Australian Democrats and that uses the Hallett system for internal referendums. I wasn't talking about Australia. Markus Schulze 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, speedy if possible. Stifle 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:18, 29 January 2006 (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.