Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llull voting system (second nomination)

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. Angr/talk 10:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llull voting system

Is Wikipedia turning into an aristocracy now? Administrators have now disregarded official policies regarding this article two times. One time in keeping an article having a 3-1 vote in favor of deletion based on a personal judgement of the article's noteworthiness, the other for removing the entry from deletion review without there being a majority of votes endorsing the original result.

The Condorcet method already contained a reference to Ramon Llull, but this was later removed based on an argument that IMO borders on original research. There is no reason to effectively duplicate the contents of an article under a protologist title. Instead, Llull's role could again be mentioned in the Condorcet method article under a newly created history section. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the tone of this nomination, but I agree that the article should be deleted. Llull did describe pairwise voting, but to consider his description a "voting system" in the modern sense is unjustified extrapolation. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tokakeke 04:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, on the assumption User:Rspeer knows what he/she's talking about ;x . — Adrian Lamo ·· 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't like their tone of the nomination either, nor its defiance of the Deletion Review (which just closed 2 days ago). If Dissidant had done more than just provide a vote count to the DR (like commenting on the closing admin's complex rationale, or Xoloz's support), maybe their call to overturn the previous result would have garnered some support. That said, please, no one vote speedy keep because of the recent AfD and DR; this article is not worth further drama. I was the sole full supporter in the first AfD, and though I want this voting system covered, I do not much like this article, and won't argue to keep it on principle. The material could be covered well with two or three sentences in Ramon Llull, and I'm sure someone add it there eventually. In the meantime it's not important to keep this article around (or order its merger), since no one (including me and Rspeer) seem to want to salvage it. ×Meegs 07:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Rspeer and an astounding one unique Google hit that is not from Wikipedia or a Wikipedia mirror. If it's worth mentioning, mention it on Ramon Llull or Condorcet method. And in retrospect the original closing should probably have been an extension given how few votes were available, but the tone taken in this nomination is unhelpful; you can hardly blame admins for not deleting when confronted with a 2-1-1 split and a no-consensus DRV. --Aquillion 10:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aqillion. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aquilion, thorough reasoning. Just zis Guy you know? 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - Sikon 17:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no particular opinion about this article since I don't know much about voting systems. When I closed the first AFD as a "move" it was not due to aristocratic arrogance, but because Meegs presenting some reasonable arguments and evidence of the system being mentioned separately in a scientific paper. These arguments were, I felt, unrebutted, and moving this to the term used in that paper would satisfy some of the objections regarding the neologistic nature of the title. Such comments and discussion outweigh the pure vote count. The guideline is "when in doubt, don't delete". If it should have been deleted after all it can be renominated like here. Now, I see that Meegs no longer has voted keep because of the article's quality, so perhaps a consensus can develop this time around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 16:08, 6 March 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.