Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definite Majority Choice

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 delete - non claim that this voting system is used and it has not been published and reviewed in any scholarly sources. All mentions are blogs, mailing lists etc. as opposed to reliable sources. WjBscribe 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definite Majority Choice

Definite Majority Choice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. Original research. This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. Furthermore, this article is POV. ("DMC satisfies many desirable criteria, but is simpler to explain and implement than many other voting systems with similar benefits.") Yellowbeard 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete yes indeed, canonical original research. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. JJL 18:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I was actually asked to make this page for use here, and I don't think that the remark at the top is POV.. it does satisfy a long list of criteria, similar to e.g. Schulze method and Ranked Pairs, but is considerably simpler than either. xmath 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also note that I personally had nothing to do with the invention of DMC in any of its incarnations xmath 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not OR. It is mentioned in [1] and [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] and [6]. Given these links and the wikipedia definition of OR I dont think it can be considered to be OR. The item is a summary of research done elsewhere. Demerphq 08:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone tries to discredit some of these references due to them being mailing lists and related media please consider the following quote from Voting system: "The advent of the Internet has increased the interest in voting systems. Unlike many other mathematical fields, voting theory is generally accessible enough to non-experts that new results can be discovered by amateurs, and frequently are. As such, many recent discoveries in voting theory come not from published papers, but from informal discussions among hobbyists on online forums and mailing lists." Demerphq 09:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And the article contains references to off-site materials in its first paragraph! Demerphq 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Everybody can post articles to mailing lists, to blogs, and to wikis. Therefore, see this Wikipedia policy: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Therefore, this article violates WP:OR and WP:V.

Furthermore, the first paragraph of this article ("DMC satisfies many desirable criteria, but is simpler to explain and implement than many other voting systems with similar benefits.") contains too many weasel words. Therefore, this article violates WP:POV and WP:AWW. Yellowbeard 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note none of those links are to a "self-published book", "personal website" or a "blog". And given that the Voting system article specifically documents that important work in this area is done on mailing lists by hobbyists I dont see that your objection holds water at all. And what in that description counts as weasle words? The list of desirable criteria for a voting system are well known (and mathematically grounded). The only thing in that list that IMO could be considered POV is "simpler to explain and implement". The presence of a POV quote does not a deletion make. Demerphq 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OOps, one of the links is to a blog, so consider reference 4 eliminated. Demerphq 11:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference 1 refers to a wiki; references 3 and 6 refer to posts to mailing lists; reference 4 refers to a blog; references 2 and 5 refer to an election software that has neither been published in any journal nor been used by any organization. Therefore, my criticism is valid for all of your references.

Also the claim that "important work in this area is done on mailing lists by hobbyists" is rather only an opinion than a fact. "Important" according to whom? Of course, according to these hobbyists! Yellowbeard 13:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that important work cant be done on a mailing list? And a wiki on electoral systems doesnt qualify? Something must be used by an organization or published in a journal to be considered worthy of mention on Wikipedia? If so then if something only happens on the internet then it can't be referenced on wp... Which seems ridiculous to me. Demerphq 14:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I am saying is that simply being on some wikis, blogs or mailing lists doesn't automatically qualify for getting a Wikipedia article. Yellowbeard 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep This is definitely NOT original research, but teeters on the brink of notability. The article needs a clean-up to remove POV editing.--Fahrenheit451 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to fix POV, is this better? xmath 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The new formulation is in no way less POV. Yellowbeard 12:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, why? It now explicitly states with which methods it shares a similar criteria-list (which are objective criteria, not subjective) and it makes a concrete comparison of complexity (rather than a vague "is simpler", though a quick look at Schulze/RP vs DMC makes it pretty obvious it *is* simpler anyway) xmath 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I should partially revert it. While it also has lower algorithmic complexity it's not what I'm trying to convey there. It's simpler in *description*, giving it a better chance at public acceptance. I'll see if I can somehow phrase that with care.... xmath 12:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, the sentence "Al Gore is a very handsome, intelligent, and honest guy" is POV. When the sentence is changed to "Al Gore is a very handsome, intelligent, and honest guy compared to George W. Bush", then this sentence is still POV, even though "it makes a concrete comparison". Yellowbeard 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when is "handsome" an objective criterion? Can you support the "intelligent" and "honest"? Is any of this relevant for comparing presidents? I'm comparing DMC to similar competitors based on objective characteristics that are relevant for voting systems (including simplicity, so you can explain it to people). You make it sound like you can't do any comparison without making it "POV". xmath 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I am saying is that a "concrete comparison" isn't automatically NPOV. For example, is the statement "IRV satisfies all criteria that are satisfied by the Borda method, plus some additional criteria" POV? Who decides what "all criteria" means? The Borda supporters? The IRV supporters?

You write that "DMC satisfies a list of voting system criteria very similar to that of the Schulze method and Ranked Pairs". But who decides what "very similar" means? The DMC supporters? The Schulze/Ranked Pairs supporters?

You write that Definite Majority Choice "is simpler to describe and has easier implementation [than Schulze or Ranked Pairs], because the elimination process is done on candidates, rather than on comparisons between pairs of candidates". However, with the same justification you could say that Definite Majority Choice is more complicated because "DMC takes as input ranked ballots with approval cutoff." Yellowbeard 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good points. Though saying "in no way less POV" was a bit harsh, I certainly tried to make it less POV. The thing I'm trying to convey with the criteria is that they're basically methods in the same "league"... being monotone, cloneproof, LIIA (As opposed to different methods that go for incompatible criteria, which makes comparison much harder without getting into religious wars about which incompatible criteria are "better"). This means that practically the methods can be expected to give similar real-world performance, differing only in awkward corner cases.

The approval thing doesn't actually complicate the ballots if you use truncation or grades, but you're right that the simplicity in producing the winner comes at some cost. Let me again see if I can get all this across in an NPOV way, since simplicity is what sets DMC apart from its competitors, and is important so you can easily explain the election result to people (which I'd have a harder time doing with Schulze). xmath 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article is the only Wikipedia article about an election method that has neither been published nor used anywhere. If this article isn't deleted then Wikipedia is changed from an encyclopedia to a discussion forum. Yellowbeard 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been published on mailing lists, in various forms, the first time over 6 years ago, and isn't being "discussed" anymore... it's done as it is. As Demerphq pointed out, a mailing list is a not an uncommon medium for advances in voting theory. For comparison, where has the Schulze method been "published"? The pdfs linked to look like self-published to me. It just got more attention because it was an advance in satisfying criteria, while DMC keeps the same criteria but with greater simplicity. xmath 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Mailing lists are not reliable sources (especially when they are neither restricted nor moderated). Yellowbeard 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unless this voting system is in use somewhere, or has been published and reviewed in a scholarly manner, then it isnt suitable for Wikipedia. Without quality reliable sources, how can the reader know that this voting system did not exist prior to "March 2005", perhaps under a different name? John Vandenberg 06:01, 3 June 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.