Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Later-no-harm criterion

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 keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Later-no-harm criterion

Later-no-harm criterion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable voting method criterion which, other than the wikipedia article, can only be found here: [1], which is the website of a voting methods discussion list, based on this article here: [2] on the internet. Fahrenheit451 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Plurality criterion, resolvability criterion, and participation criterion all seem to be closely related with the nominated article. As I personally have no knowledge of the subject, should these articles be nominated for deletion too?--TBCΦtalk? 08:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. These appear to be articles that have to do with the mathematics of voting, which is the subject of a good deal of interest. I'd be inclined to refer this matter to an expert on these topics; there may be a better name for this, and it lacks context and is not clearly written. I am not convinced yet that these articles are original research and they pass my own "smell" test. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: A Google search on this term shows it is in use, but most hits are from Electorama/ElectoWiki or from Wikipedia mirrors or from a personal website. I'll also note that two years ago, we had to clear out a lot of unsupported election-theory articles that were little more than original research. Later-no-harm appears to be in circulation among a small circle of, uh, election-theory hobbyists, but so far I'm not aware of it having had any influence on the real world, or even of being covered nontrivially in multiple reliable sources. This counts more under WP policy than anyone's smell test. I'll defer to anyone who can provide better-sourced information, but currently I'd favor a merge into an article on election systems and criteria used to evaluate them. Barno 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I would support a merge as well. It is simply not notable enough for an article of its own.--Fahrenheit451 04:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There seem to be a series of articles in this vein - Plurality criterion, Resolvability criterion, and possibly more. (hey, beaten!) This seems highly similar to what's described in Voting paradox, and, moreso, Condorcet method. I still haven't compared enough to determine whether or not this article is notable on its own, or merely a rehashed retelling of prior, more notable methods (see this AfD for a similar occurance). --Action Jackson IV 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or just possibly Merge. We can't have articles on every concept that has ever appeared in a book. There is no evidence of notability and it's too thin for an article on its own. NBeale 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A well known term in the field of mathematics/voting. Wikipedia should be attempting to be comprehensive, and it won’t do this by deleting articles like this. SmokeyJoe 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This is Not a well-known term in the filed of mathematics/voting at all and cannot be verified as such. I think a merge makes more sense.--Fahrenheit451 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I don’t really know how “well” known it is, it depends on how widely one reads, but it is certainly known. I learnt about it many years ago, as part of the many paradoxes of voting systems. It is related to monotonicity, is attributed to Douglas Woodall, Reader in Pure Mathematics at Nottingham University, UK (see [3]), and is described in many publications, including popular mathematical/voting books. It is reliably sourced, and is in frequent use. By what definition do you mean "non-notable"? SmokeyJoe 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Which popular books is it sourced in? I know of none.--Fahrenheit451 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I may be able to find the book if you really want. By “popular”, I mean “aimed at the general reader”.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
      • O.K. Please name one such book.--Fahrenheit451 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • More to the point, I ask you to explain why you think the criterion is “non-notable”, what you mean by “non-notable”, and why you believe that “non-notable” is a criterion for deletion.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
      • There is only one source of the criteria and there is no evidence of the reliability of that source. I suggest you read WP:N to answer your last question.--Fahrenheit451 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • When I google “Later no harm” I get multiple responses, excluding wikis. I see no basis for an argument that “Voting Matters” is not a reliable secondary source, or that it is not independent of Woodall? (perhaps there is one, but it hasn’t been made yet) The many other incidental references demonstrate that the subject is in widespread use.---(unsigned by SmokeyJoe)
        • You are getting responses from the three words. I think you know that.--Fahrenheit451 02:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • From: Wikipedia:Notability “Deletion A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.5 Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all.” I guess that you are relying on this. It looks already like a respectable article, it relates directly to a voting system in use, has potential to be expanded, and is clearly not a product of original research. SmokeyJoe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I found the following interesting: “However, such protest votes have an unpredictable effect on an election outcome as IRV fails to comply with any established election method criteria.” [4]. “Later-no-harm” is an established election method criteria with which IRV complies. Your contribution was POV, original research and reveals a distaste for IRV or the “later-no-harm” criterion and I suggest that you have a conflict of interest in nominating this article for deletion. For what purpose, I have no idea. I believe that your reasoning is another example of an abuse of the ill-defined, non-policy WP:N. SmokeyJoe 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • SmokeyJoey, I advise you to keep your discussion civil and not make presumptions about my motives. IRV satisfies the majority criterion and with a random ballot tie-breaking method, independence of clones, both established criteria. You seem to ignore the possibility that I could have been in error as I had only been editing wikipedia for three weeks when I wrote that edit. Instead you assume I was editing in bad faith. I believe you are violating the wikipedia policy of assuming good faith and advise you to follow it.--Fahrenheit451 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In all seriousness, I am boldly questioning your motive. I feel the need to be bold because this is not a place for a relaxed considered discussion – you are seeking to have (on March 13) the article obliterated from wikipedia, all content, history and discussions. I am curious about your motive because I cannot understand why you want to delete. “Non-notable” really doesn’t explain it. The subject has been noted in many places. As evidence for an ulterior motive, to justify the raising of the question, I offer your assertion (albeit long ago), found largely by chance, that the subject “later-no-harm” doesn’t exist. SmokeyJoe 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • No, you are being uncivil. Save your boldness for editing. Again, I advise you to assume good faith. If you assume an ulterior motive and wish to be argumentative, then I am not taking the bait. We have a civil discussion where good faith is assumed, or this stuff from you ends right here.--Fahrenheit451 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • By the way, SmokeyJoe, what is the title of the "popular" book you stated mentioned Later-no-harm. If it really does not exist, please be honest and admit it.--Fahrenheit451 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge; an article in a mathematics journal (Discrete Applied Mathematics #77) is plenty to satisfy WP:V and WP:N, so the remaining question is whether the organization of these concepts make more sense as individual articles or sections of an article like mathematical criteria for voting systems. This needn't be decided on AFD. — brighterorange (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge seems very useful to me, its part of the math of voting. WilliamKF 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, then merge. I agree that merging the content would be optimal, but think it should be left to editors who are well-versed in election theory and voting mechanisms. So, I recommend keeping and tagging the article with "mergeto". -- Black Falcon 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As with most voting system criteria, it ultimately comes down to personal opinion whether the criterion is useful; but commenters above have shown that it's attributable, and that is sufficient to keep the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per this search. Addhoc 22:16, 14 March 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.