Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intensity of Binary Independence

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intensity of Binary Independence

• Delete. IMO, this criterion is neither useful nor well-known enough to merit a wikipedia article. Hermitage 02:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the google results all seem to be from wikipedia or descriptions of Saari's book.
  • Also, the criterion implies that the "intensity of preference" between two candidates can be effectively measured by the number of candidates ranked in between them... this is a serious fallacy.
  • A merge with Borda count would be logical, but it should be made clear that this is a POV definition of preference intensity, not a generally accepted one. --Hermitage 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not vanity, likely verifiable. Mark for cleanup instead. — Phil Welch 02:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Esoteric, but hundreds of Google results. — Cory Maylett 03:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the following reasons: RSpeer 03:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Those hundreds of Google results are almost all the same two texts! One is, of course, the Wikipedia article itself, on mirror sites. The other is a review of Donald Saari's book "Elections and Decisions" (a book promoting the use of the Borda count), which is the only place this term is actually published. Filtering out wikipedia mirrors and reviews of that book leaves one hit, which is a randomly-generated spam page.
  • "Elections and Decisions" has no Wikipedia article; why should a term that only exists as a small part of that book have an article?
  • The criterion is inherently POV. Criteria are used to promote various voting methods over others based on their mathematical properties, based on the assumption that it is desirable to meet that criterion. This criterion is equivalent to the definition of the Borda count, so the article is simply hiding the statement "The Borda count is good" behind some math.
  • The criterion has not been accepted by any voting theorists except its creator, Donald Saari. The user who created this article is a strong fan of Saari.
  • Therefore, I urge people to reconsider their votes.
• Merge But I don't know to what - Independence of irrelevant alternatives perhaps could be expanded. I think this belongs in a general article on voting criteria rather than a seperate very specialised article. If nobody finds a useful merge during the vfd then weak delete. Dlyons493 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ack no. Independence of irrelevant alternatives has problems of its own without unrelated criteria being tacked onto it. If the article is merged, it should go to Borda count, but keeping in mind Hermitage's caveat. RSpeer 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per RSpeer. -- Kjkolb 10:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as no one uses this criterion. The creator of the page has already said the page could be merged into another page (e.g. Borda count). KVenzke 20:43, 19 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.