Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadratic rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 08:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quadratic rule

A theoretical voting method that has never been seriously proposed or implemented in reality. No citations of sources given. Delete, as: 1) neologism, with no evidence of significant use. 2) Personal essay; original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain for now, but the parts about "This poll is legitimate if it receives 2% participation within 2 days" and the references to "Votes for Deletion polls" sounds suspiciously like Iasson, who may be disrupting WP to make a point. See current RfC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have the same surmise. Note, however, that the article was created on Dec. 25th, 2004 and is certainly not a direct response to the RFC. (I do not perceive the article as disruptive, but I don't think it's encyclopedic, either). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looking at the history, initially, this looked like a legitimate (if possibly orignially researched) article. User:62.38.250.106 then added a bunch of text which sounds an awful lot like a WP policy proposal, going so far as to include an in-article link to VfD. Perhaps this article got hijacked? -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 20:20, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Unlikely. All those IP addresses originate at the same place. As well as User:146.124.141.250, who created Average rule (which, incidentally, is one of only three articles Iasson has made an edit to). Raven42 20:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah, well in that case delete as original research and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 21:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's pretty clear that User:146.124.141.250 is User:Iasson [1] Oh, yeah, delete as original research. --Calton 00:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • No doubt of that. The edits from 62.38.* are almost certainly all his too: [2] Oh, and did I say delete? Raven42 01:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. 14 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits for "quadratic rule" (vote OR voting), none of which are relevant. —Korath (Talk) 01:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, patent nonsense. Take your pick. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll abstain only because I don't feel like researching this specific article.  :) But, I would like to say that if this and average rule are ruled to be deleted, then the rest of the work from this author should also be called into question. I've already taken my scissors to unencyclopedic stuff he added to majoritarianism. --Stevietheman 04:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original patent nonsense; Don't abuse WP to make a point. The edit history's IP overlap, specific text content, and in-article link to the Iasson RfC (which has had an unbelievable history of its own outside of the VfD edits that caused it) all point to a user who has shown strange (and somewhat disruptive) ideas about Wikipedia voting standards, and who more importantly has refused to propose his ideas in appropriate forums after being directed to them. VfD, RfC, and now the (revised) article space are being filled with timewasting legalistic junk. Barno 05:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research (at best). Andrewa 08:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Detete. Thryduulf 09:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • of course Keep. Of course I didnt wrote that article. Of course this is another victim of the deletionist gang band, because I used it as a reference and as an defence in my RFC. Iasson 15:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • As per the general consensus in the above mentioned RFC I have deleted the portion of Iasson's comment regarding a change to the VfD procedure. Thryduulf 15:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I acknowledge that it was indeed the recent RfC that drew my attention to the article. Actually what drew me to it was the link Quadratic rule from average rule. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. This has gone on far too long. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. If deleted, also delete the ridirect Quadratic vote. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research --BM 00:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-encyclopedic mumbo-jumbo. Delete. hfool/Roast me 03:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original "research", or more likely an original attempt at disruption. —Stormie 09:07, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.