Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus/keep. W.marsh 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting
- Delete. This article has been created exclusively for POV purposes. This article doesn't cite any peer-reviewed publications. Yellowbeard 09:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Content fork of the discussion of advantages and disadvantages of instant runoff voting already found in the main article. The heading "Reasons for support and why they're wrong" is the clearest indicator of an obvious pro-instant runoff bias, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place to campaign for or against any voting system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Undecided This article is in creation as a way of cleaning the IRV article itself, by moving disputed debate about IRV to this separate article (linked from the main article). I agree that the phrase "why they are wrong" adds bias...but AGAINST IRV not in favor... it says why the PRO arguments are wrong. Perhaps this article can reside on some discussion page instead of as an article, until it is ready for prime time. In the mean time I will clean out that offensive phrase to make it neutral.
-
- Tbouricius 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The blatantly POV heading mentioned above was vandalism of the article, by an acknowledged pro-IRV editor upset ("pissed" in the edit comment) about what he saw as the thrust of the discussion of each point. That was not an accurate view. This is a stub, proposed by various editors of Instant Runoff Voting, and, in fact, created by an experienced editor who seems friendly to IRV. I reorganized the article to deal with points one by one, and my edits doing that were simply a proposal and example of how we could proceed, and further edits to remove my possible POV or unbalanced comments were invited and I understood that they would take place, plus, obviously, "Con" claims would need to be added and similarly discussed. I only had so much time! All or most of the comments can be referenced, and, indeed, some of the necessary references are in the Instant Runoff Voting article, so it is only a matter of a little time until those references are transferred or otherwise found -- or the comments are taken out as unsourced and controversial. Terrill Bouricius for example, is a published author in the field, and a consultant to FairVote; the sarcastic editor Tom Ruen is affiliated with FairVote Minnesota. I am, on occasion, an advisor to the Center for Range Voting, and, while I am known as a critic of FairVote, my personal goal, on Wikipedia, is accuracy, balance, and the creation of interesting and informative articles. The originator of the page is Captain Zyrain who is a participant in the Wikiproject Elections and Referenda. I hope that editor Tom Ruen will participate in making the Controversies article accurate and balanced. I am also confident that we are all open to suggestions about how to proceed with organizing this new article, but we found that including Pro and Con arguments in the Instant-runoff voting article was a source of constant conflict, sometimes going back and forth, settling, and then going back and forth again as a new editor shows up. Moving this to its own page will, we expect, allow the main article to become more stable. Controversy is really about people and how they argue, not about the topic itself, yet it is clearly related to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is becoming more balanced now and I anticipate this page will deal with the controversies in reference to IRV at a level of depth that would not have been suitable for the main article. Captain Zyrain 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Undecided - I think this article could have potential, but is not worthy as-is, hence my header vandalism that better reflected the unbalanced content. Tom Ruen 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Abd's excellent argument. I don't like forks, but this seems possibly useful. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Abd's statement. I hope Yellowbeard is not engaging in a pattern of tendentious AfD's. --Fahrenheit451 00:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Undecided Last time I looked at the article it was very poor. Today when I checked it out it's much better. I'm still not sure it this topic deserves its own article... but if people keep improving this article it could be worth having. Paladinwannabe2 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly a notable issue is involved. The title may not be the best. If it is a fork, content should be merged and the history retained. --SmokeyJoe 14:03, 25 October 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.
