Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asset voting


 * 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   No consensus, default to keep. Several users agree that Dodgson's proposed method should be documented somewhere on Wikipedia. There is also agreement that Smith's interpretation and coining of the term "asset voting" is not widely recognized, being mentioned only in self-published materials. However, since Smith's work is not the only analysis of Hodgson's voting system, there is sufficient basis for an article describing the system itself. Concerns over promoting Smith's neologisms could be addressed by renaming the article or merging its text to a fuller exploration of Dodgson's work in the field. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Asset voting

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Original research. Neologism. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article has been created by Sarsaparilla who has been blocked indefinitely. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Be careful about this AfD. See Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to Instant-runoff voting, such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting Bayesian regret, the Center for Range Voting, etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many Voting systems articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by Lewis Carroll in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the Center for Range Voting, and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When Asset voting was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--Abd (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Could do with expanding though Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --87.114.131.46 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) According to Abd and EconomicsGuy this IP is probably a sockpuppet of community banned user User:Fredrick day. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Edited by EconomicsGuy to clarify the situation EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) See also for a related note by admin User:Sarcasticidealist and note, in that AfD, the allied participation of Fredrick day and Yellowbeard. Fredric day is known -- and was blocked -- for harassing inclusionists (such as myself, User:Kmweber, and User:Sarsaparilla), and Yellowbeard for selectively AfDing articles on voting systems, with no significant article contributions in his history, and he was 24-hour blocked for canvassing after warning. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) And Abd is known for getting personal when challenged. Yellowbeard (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP editor also, at implicitly acknowledged being Fredrick day, and we may presume that Yellowbeard knows it, because he participated in that discussion. I'm prepared, if need be, to defend what I've written about Fredrick day and Yellowbeard before ArbComm, it is not a violation of WP:NPA, whereas Yellowbeard has quite frequently introduced ad hominem arguments, such as the nomination in this AfD, which brought in a totally irrelevant issue about the article creator. The identity and possible POV motives of a nominator are relevant, because in many AfDs, early voters will take statements of the nominator at face value, assuming good faith, but WP:AGF is a rebuttable presumption, and a bit dangerous with AfDs. Note that I argued on AN/I that problems with Yellowbeard should not be allowed to interrupt the AfD, because I considered the notability of Asset Voting a legitimate question, and, obviously, legitimate editors may disagree on this. However, Yellowbeard has done enough, with this AfD and what he's done before, that a block may be justified, but I'm not planning on proposing this until the AfD closes. I think it is not relevant to this particular AfD and Yellowbeard is unlikely to do significant harm before it closes.--Abd (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This exemplifies my observation that Abd gets personal when challenged. Yellowbeard (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Center for Range Voting.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The Center is not known for Asset Voting and doesn't promote it, it just happens that one of the founders of the Center re-invented Asset voting, web-publishing in 2004. The Carroll material is far more interesting to me, and has reliable source.--Abd (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Subject has considerable scholarly discussion. Celarnor Talk to me  17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An academic self-publishing papers on his webspace at his place of employment does not represent "considerable scholarly discussion" - not in the slightest. Have any of those paper been published in peer-reviewed journals? Conference proceedings? What you have listed is just plain old original research. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC) — 87.114.151.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Celarnor Talk to me 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP edit has been acknowledged on AN/I (section diff as being from the blocked User:Fredrick day. I have deleted other comments he made in this AfD, none of them add arguments not presented by others. They may be seen in History, and if anyone thinks them relevant, I'd suggest putting them in Talk for this page. I left this one because Celarnor had made comment on it. Fd's His comment about "place of employment" was pure speculation, it's not true, but I would agree with him that there has not been "considerable scholarly discussion." There has been considerable discussion outside of peer-reviewed journals, there is self-published material from a notable expert, possibly usable with attribution, and some reliable source exists for the Lewis Carroll connection.--Abd (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Four of the five papers mentioned by Celarnor  have been written by Warren Smith. The fifth paper is not on asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well,, the fifth paper might be about asset voting, I can't tell from the summary. Perhaps Celarnor can help us out. "Asset Voting" refers to candidates receiving votes being able to reassign them as if they were their "assets," an idea which was stated first by Carroll. Focusing on Warren Smith is a mistake. He's a notable voting systems advocate (which might make his papers usable in certain limited ways), and he independently invented it, apparently, but Carroll was there more than a hundred years before.--Abd (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter who wrote them? If I were to look up all the important papers on string theory, I would find that most of them were by those who created the field.  That's only natural.  Celarnor Talk to me  21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh? you've pretty much just established it's OR. Scholarly debate is not a single academic publishing unreviewed papers on his personal webspace. Scholarly debate is established by the response of other academics to works published - generally as conference proceedings or in peer review journals or as citations within either of those types of works. What you have selected, in nowway, shape or form represents academia discourse. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.64.105 (talk)


 * When all papers are by the same person and when none of these papers has ever been published, then this can hardly be called a "considerable scholarly discussion". All papers by Warren Smith on asset voting are non-notable per this policy. Yellowbeard (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment.I've written, in, a discussion of what I know about the topic, with some sources. The best source is the paper by Duncan Black that is referenced from the Article. While the term "Asset Voting" was not used by Carroll, he uses quite the same analogy to describe it, candidates may "treat these votes as if they were their own personal property." --Abd (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then it shouldn't be used - what you describe represents original research and novel synthesis on your part. The source has to make an EXPLICIT linkage, you cannot do it and claim he uses "quite the same analogy". --87.114.139.108 (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article should be kept since it gives a valuable description of one of the election systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topjur01 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment.I posted a neutral notice to an off-wiki mailing list, Election Methods, knowing that many Wikipedia editors knowledgeable about voting systems read that list -- and this is a neutral list. Later, I'll post a link to that notice. In the meanwhile, Wikiproject Voting Systems should be notified as well, I do that later if nobody gets to it before me.--Abd (talk)
 * I have also placed a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Voting systems .diff The email notice disclosed above may be seen at and see also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Asset voting--Abd (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The word for that is "canvassing", no matter what weasel words you place around it. --Calton | Talk 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there was canvassing there, Calton. There is a seeking of comment, evidence, and argument from experts, who may be far more familiar with the literature than I or anyone else here. In any case, here is a link to the email:. Canvassers don't normally announce what they have done to the AfD.... but if it is improper, I'm sure that a closing admin can deal with it. --Abd (talk)


 * Delete - Little sign of actual real-world impact or notice, and plenty of sign of using Wikipedia to promote someone's fringe idea. --Calton | Talk 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Little real world impact or value as judged by uninvolved/unrelated third party sources. Existing sources are mostly tied to this topic's proponent, and not valid here for notabillity... so, delete. And canvassing? Yuck. rootology  ( T ) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, canvassing, Yuck. Did Rootology see any evidence of violation of WP:CANVASS before making this comment? As to the sources, has Rootology looked at the Lewis Carroll sources? I agree, it's easy to conclude that there is too little out there, particularly if you only pay attention to the claims about Warren Smith and the Center for Range Voting. Both of them are now notable, Smith is an expert, and original research by notable experts *may* under some circumstances be usable, with attribution, not claimed as fact. There is a reason why Rule Number One isIgnore all rules: rigid adherence to rules, no matter how good they generally are, can harm the project, and our standard of judgment isn't conformance to guidelines, but community practice and consensus. Guidelines, when well written, tell us what we can, more or less, expect to see when the community decides. I voted Keep, not based on the strictest application of WP:RS but in the interest of having a verifiable, reliable, informative, and interesting encyclopedia. And the purpose of this AfD is to determine if the community agrees. I trust the ultimate decision, particularly given that the fuss is attracting wider attention. AfD is dangerous when only a few rule-bound and distracted editors make snap judgments about topics they know nothing about, based on a wikilawyered nomination by an SPA with an axe to grind.--Abd (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The topic clearly exists. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the sake of completeness of our coverage of voting systems. JamesMLane t c 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. We had a vandal a while back who was making up "voting" schemes and writing hoax articles about them.  He was finally blocked for his vandalism but in some parting comments, he asserted that we had not yet found and deleted all of his hoaxes.  (He used a number of IP and sockpuppet accounts to carry out the vandalism.)  I have not yet had time to research this particular article but I would urge all participants to be particularly skeptical about unsourced or poorly sourced articles on the topic of voting.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This vandal was Sarsaparilla, who also created the article on asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any hoax articles written by that user. This article isn't a hoax, obviously; he didn't make it up, nor did he make up Liquid democracy, or what he moved it to, Delegable proxy, the sources, whether it's decided they are RS or not for encyclopedic purpose, prove that. Nor was he a serious vandal (unlike Fredrick day, whose edits to this AfD Yellowbeard has replaced). So, really, I'd like to know who Rossami was talking about.--Abd (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to a new article on C. L. Dodgson's (Lewis Carroll's) work on voting methods. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia includes only passing references to this subject -- including a link in the Voting system article to an article on Dodgson's method that doesn't exist yet. (Dodgson's method is a Condorcet-compliant single-winner method completely distinct from asset voting.) The main article on his life and career doesn't mention this aspect of his work at all, and it should be covered. As things stand right now, Warren Smith's re-invention is, I think, original research until it is available in sources that Wikipedia recognizes. But the article I have mind would need to mention Smith in connection with the name, asset voting, because apparently Dodgson himself didn't name his creation.Bob Richard (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the new article existed, I'd be happy to go with Merge. In the long run, this idea of Dodgson could be the most enduring of his contributions, but you'd have only my opinion for that. Tell you what, I'll get it published and someone can put it in. What a great idea! Anyway, for now, we do need an article, there is plenty of source for it, and I have the books on order. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Still not notable despite the campaign to pass it off as such. Where are the sources other than an article describing the basic idea without calling it asset voting. Try spending less time campaigning here and on ANI and more time adding sources. Also, support what Rootology said above. EconomicsGuy (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Keep per my discussion with Abd I trust that he will be able to and intent to expand this into a broader article that would effectively remove the concerns raised on this AfD. basically I think we've been talking past each other here and the edit warring over a banned user's !vote didn't help. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this (last part) appears to be a personal comment directed at me, I'll respond to it in Talk for this page.--Abd (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know which discussion motivated EconomicsGuy to change his mind, but there was also some discussion on his Talk page. He and I did not edit war at all, the edit warring was really on the part of a blocked sock and the nominator. It didn't become a full-blown edit war because, instead of edit warring when reverted, I took it to AN/I, then made one more edit based on discussion there, which was reverted, and EconomicsGuy then assisted, asking for AGF, which was all too uncommonly nice.--Abd (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge) - does not appear to meet notability requirements, as it lacks significant coverage from third-party sources. Terraxos (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the nominator has been editing the article to remove citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Colonel Warden has been editing the article (after the nomination) to add citations although the added citations have nothing to do with asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Improving an article while it is at AFD is normal practise. Your contention that the citations are improper OR is a fair point but other editors should have the opportunity to review these sources while forming their opinion of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, did you read the citations you added? Adding citations that have nothing to do with an article is not "improving an article". Yellowbeard (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I read enough of them to satisfy myself that they are not spurious. If you wish to challenge them I suggest that you add appropriate tags to the article, indicating your concerns.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge We have enough sources to retain this as a stub. The title and direction in which the article develops are matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge. Delete, because "Asset voting" is a non-notable neologism based non-notable original research from someone (Smith) self-publishing outside his academic area of expertise. The only part of this article that is appropriate for Wikipedia relates to Dodgson, primarily for historical/biographical reasons.  The meager amount of material relating to Dodgson, for now and apparently in the near future, best fits in the existing article on Dodgson.  From there, in due time, it could always expand into its own section(s) or even its own article.  In voting system articles especially, quality will be improved by more carefully respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than institutionalizing fringe-advocacy-motivated exceptions. DCary (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge may indeed be appropriate, though probably not to Lewis Carroll; rather to a new article on the man's work on voting systems which, it turns out, was voluminous and has multiple published sources. Just not on the internet. I have books on the way. At this point, Smith's work on Asset may be worthy of a brief mention in an article (he's notable in this field, and that can be proven and maybe he's finally worthy of an article, another topic entirely). (Notice that it's brief here, and I just reverted out an IP editor's attempt to add substantial material on the details of Smith's method. It was true, but out of balance.) Smith's academic field is mathematics, and his work has been an application of mathematics to voting systems theory, then he became involved in advocacy. He's a quirky writer, but his work is widely recognized and described (in brief) in reliable sources, and he co-authored a a paper with Ron Rivest and Rivest has cited his work (not on Asset voting, though). My position on his work is that it can't be used as reliable source yet, except for direct verification of attributed content, which may be usable, that's really up to editorial consensus (he's notable for voting systems advocacy). For now, whether or not Merge is the result, my plan is to create, at least, a section in the Carroll bio. But pretty quickly, the available material will fill its own article. Carroll is one of the most fascinating Victorian authors I've encountered, and his work with voting systems was way advanced for his time. We have reliable source on the importance of Dodgson's work in this field, so the view that this is only of historical/biographical interest is incorrect. (The "field" is voting systems in general; what this article calls Asset Voting was called Candidate Proxy by Forest Simmons and Mike Ossipoff. -- this is a mailing list, not directly usable, but if a peer-reviewed article quotes it, it's good to go... Not yet, as far as I know. Carroll describes the idea, but the significance of it was only noticed recently.) It was apparently too brillig for its time, and the slithy toves were busy gyring and gimbling in the wabe. (If Carroll wrote for Wikipedia, we'd block him quickly. Definitely not encyclopedic, hoax.)--Abd (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR; there's no real question here - Wikipedia does not represent this kind of original work as encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions: Abd concurs that Smith's paper's are not reliable sources. Do others who want to keep the article under its current entry disagree?  If so, on what basis?  If there are no reliable sources for the term "asset voting", why keep the article under this entry?  I've not seen anyone justify keeping the article under its current entry in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  If it should be an exception, what distinguishes this article?  For those who advocate completeness, are you advocating that every voting system and voting system neologism should have its own entry in Wikipedia, and every assessment of voting systems should be represented in Wikipedia, regardless of considerations of source?  If not, where/how would you draw the line?  (I ask these questions in the spirit that this is supposed to be a process of discussion and consensus, not merely voting for a result?) DCary (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's slightly more complicated than DCary stated. Smith's papers, at this point, not being subjected to formal peer review, can't be used as reliable source for fact. For example, if Smith says that Range Voting has the lowest Bayesian regret of all single-ballot voting systems -- and it does --, we can't just put in an article this fact about Range Voting based on his paper stating that. But we may be able to put in a statement that "Warren D. Smith, of the Center for Range Voting, claims that Range Voting has the ... blah blah." If editorial consensus is that he is notable as an advocate, or possibly as an expert, it's possible to use it. In Asset voting, the reference to Smith is being used to source that he proposed the method and gave it that name, with possibly a little detail, but nothing controversial, in fact. I have seen Asset voting attributed to Smith many times, and not one challenge of the fact (and no challenge here, the challenge is only technical). But the method is something else. I found, and noted in Talk:Asset voting, prior modern mention of the method, from Forest Simmons (2002) and Mike Ossipoff (2000). (Mailing list posts, well-known as coming from them.) For Smith, the source verifies the text, with no reasonable doubt left. He did coin that name, and there is no other simple name that is so well-known. DCary asks a very general question, and it is asked with hyperbole, so I'm going to answer it literally. No. Only notable systems, which could include every system where, when I write to the Election Methods list and ask a question or make a comment about a system by name, I will get few, if any, responses that ask, for example, "Hybrid FuzzyMath Voting? What's that?" Of course, if I ask about Hybrid FuzzyMath Voting, I'm going to get no response or that Huh? That is, one measure of true notability is that experts will recognize the name and know what it is. Experts who have been following the field in recent years know what Asset voting is. Some of them, indeed, would know Candidate proxy as well, though probably not as many. (Candidate proxy and Asset voting are the same thing.) This, of course, leaves us with a problem. If it is well-known among experts, but it isn't in what we define as reliable source, does this mean that (1) we can't use it at all, or (2) we can use it by consensus. I'll tell you what actual practice is: the encyclopedia is full of such information, and deletion of it, which is, in fact, happening, isn't improving the encyclopedia in fact even though it may be in theory. That is, I'm claiming, what is in fact well-known, which is, by definition, not controversial, may not need reliable source, even though it's better to have it. What I've seen, quite commonly, in AfDs involving this field, is deletion based on lack of reliable source, even though what RS was being sought for was actually not controversial in the least, and could be readily verified. The objection is based on the guideline, which is ... called wikilawyering, if one wants to be rude about it. To me, the interpretation of policy by consensus trumps guidelines, and guidelines themselves are not "law," but exactly what the name implies, some general guidance of how the community operates, not binding on the community at all. Ah, shades of Kim Bruning! Now, as to this AfD. If Smith's paper can't be used at all, and excepting the possibility that Asset Voting has been mentioned in print, by that name, we probably can't keep the article under its present name, though it's possible a redirect could be in place. As has been mentioned by another editor, it's quite likely that if this AfD closes as Merge, or even if it closes as Delete, there will be an article written on Lewis Carroll's work on voting systems and proportional representation, which would mention his "as if they were private property" idea, and it is hardly significant synthesis to equate this to "as if they were the candidate's assets," and, thus, there could be *brief* mention of modern echoes of Carroll's ideas. Smith's paper could be cited there, I would propose, properly framed and attributed. That is what I would do if it were my decision. It is not. It is the community's decision.--Abd (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple answer: The article name Asset voting is justifiable under Verifiability, which is policy. And, I'll submit, nobody here, or in the article, has challenged the accuracy of this. Only technicalities of sourcing are being challenged. Now, easily, the community may decide that Asset voting isn't sufficiently notable to have an article; in that case, we would be looking at Delete or Merge and Redirect. Merge and Redirect is better, because people are going to look it up. Do we need RS to have a redirect? What to redirect to? Well, I could create a stub on Carroll's work pretty quickly. Probably not this weekend, though. I've got my girls to take care of. --Abd (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, we could discuss Warren Smith's papers to the death. Fact is: Warren Smith is a self-proclaimed voting system expert. His papers have never been published somewhere. There is no publication in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions or even discusses Smith's proposals. If Smith's proposals were notable, then everything would be notable. Yellowbeard (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual fact is that Warren Smith has been noticed as a significant voting system proponent by publications like The Economist and other reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I and apparently others do challenge it. If the article under this title is to be justified, the facts and rules need detailed substantiation and citation.  At best, Abd confuses the criteria for including incidental or supplementary material with the criteria for having an article to begin with.  Similarly, Abd confuses Smith's academic area of expertise with his broader academic discipline.  Having a Ph.D. in history does not mean one has an academic area of expertise in Russian history, let alone 19th century Russian history.  Similarly, a background in mathematics or even applied mathematics does not mean one has expertise in all areas of applied mathematics, let alone all areas in which mathematics can be applied.  If anyone wants to make a case that Smith's area of academic expertise is some portion of  voting theory or voting systems, please identify it and make a case for it by giving the details, for example peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, Ph.D. thesis, graduate level courses taught, academic sponsors/teachers, formal course work taken, etc.  Even academics are allowed to have and write about their avocational interests, and this, along with many other bloggers and EM participants is what Smith has appeared to do with voting systems.  But there is a distinction that Wikipedia policy makes.  Being mentioned as a voting reform advocate, even in the area of voting integrity, hardly qualifies one as a notable expert for proposing asset voting. DCary (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Another citation has been added. This demonstrates wider usage than the voting theory community. The article seems to be coming along nicely.  The main bone of contention seems to be the title and the corresponding inventive claims.  But note that this is irrelevant to our purpose here since the title of an article is not a matter of deletion - it can be changed by any editor, using the move button.  Likewise, a merge into a article such as Proportional representation or Proxy vote is not a matter of deletion.  Since we have a good topic and several reliable sources now, deletion seems quite inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your citation of the IEEE conference paper has been removed by Abd because this paper has nothing to do with asset voting. Therefore, this paper doesn't demonstrate that there is "wider usage than the voting theory community" or that "we have reliable sources". Yellowbeard (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The paper does have something to do with asset voting and that is obviously why I cited it. It seems that Abd doesn't understand something about this but he has failed to explain his difficulty. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When I follow the link I see an abstract of the article, not the article. My "difficulty" is that I don't see the connection with Asset Voting. It may be in the paper, or it may be that the connection simply is obscure to me. If Colonel Warden would explain, in detail, the connection, I'd certainly reconsider. I think I asked for the same thing with regard to another user asserting this source, so, indeed, if the other editor and Colonel Warden have, perhaps, seen the actual article, either one of them could explain. It's moot for this AfD, in fact. The basic concept of Asset Voting (that candidates treat votes as their "property" (Carroll) or "assets" (Smith) or that they are treated as proxies for the voters (Simmons, Ossipoff) is verifiable. Relative notability is another matter, and I've elsewhere stated what Colonel Warden agrees with above, and which has also been cogently proposed by at least one editor who at first voted Delete: there is material sufficiently notable and reliable to be a matter of mention in another article, or more than one article. In particular, an article on the voting systems work of Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) is definitely in order, and that there have been modern reinventions of the same process *may* be noted in that article. As CW points out, these are editorial decisions, not AfD decisions. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the IEEE conference paper has anything to do with asset voting because this paper talks about choosing missions. But missions cannot "use, distribute, or redistribute votes they received in the election, negotiating with each other to put together a coalition of enough votes to win". Yellowbeard (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The paper is about autonomous systems. These, by definition, have sufficient intelligence to haggle over multiple mission objectives.  Such systems are needed for robotic probes to places like Mars.  The paper describes how theoretical political systems such as "asset voting" were used to construct and simulate the performance of such systems. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as neologism. Only cited reference that actually mentions the term was by the person who coined it. No evidence of any reliable sources independent of the person who originating the term actually using it... and discussion forums are not reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken as this cited source uses the term. In any case, such use of a novel term is not a reason to delete.  The guideline WP:NEO states In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title..  So, if there's a problem with asset voting, we just move the article to something like Voting systems in which the candidates recast their votes as proxies. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CW is correct. The fact, though, is that the name "Asset Voting" is a very good very short summary of the method, and, as I noted, widely recognized in the voting system community. The term "Candidate Proxy" is also recognized. There was another similar system called "Candidate List," where vote transfers are controlled by lists published by candidates prior to the election, which then grays into the use of party-list in Single transferable vote. These mentions (of all but the STV thing), though, are generally in mailing lists or on wikis or web pages, which is how, since the mid-1990s, the voting methods community has mostly communicated, peer-reviewed publications being rare. I allowed -- or added -- references to mailing lists *only* to show mention and timing of mention, not to show characteristics or other original research. This is an example of how guidelines can be interpreted as rigid rules and used to exclude what isn't controversial at all. The general objection to mailing lists is twofold: first, no proof of identity, allegedly, and second, no peer-review process. However, Ossipoff and Simmons are both highly notable in the field; in fact, those are their real names, definitely for Simmons and probably for Ossipoff (if Ossipoff is a pseudonym, it would be one that he has used continuously since the 1990s until the present, I simply don't know if his RL identity has been verified); Simmons is a math instructor. If those posts had not been theirs, we'd have heard about it. From them. As to peer-review, it's not relevant to what is sourced from the article, for what is sourced is only mention of "Candidate proxy" and to descriptions of the method so that any reader can see that the method is the same concept as Asset Voting. None of the objection to this has been based on dispute of the fact, only on the alleged nonconformance to RS requirements, which are general and not necessarily binding in a specific case like this. We make fine distinctions on what is allowed and not allowed on an article by article basis, and depending on what precisely is being sourced, thorugh editorial consensus among those who actually take an interest in the subject as distinct from the presumed rules, which is what AfDs tend to focus on. Smith is a notable expert on voting systems, and that can be established by RS, mostly through extensive quotation of Smith by William Poundstone, in Gaming the Vote, and then through discussion of this by other writers in reliable sources. So the argument could be made that Smith's paper on Asset Voting could be reliable source for some purposes. This would be one. No controversial claim is being made from this source. Nothing that peer review would have any impact on. The raw fact is verifiable directly. The paper could be absolute garbage of no notability otherwise, and it would stand as clear verification of what the article takes from it.--Abd (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited article by Abel and Sukkarieh illustrates the pitfalls of using unreliable sources such as Smith's self-published papers, public forums such as the elections method mailing list, or various self-proclaimed or advocacy-declared experts, not to mention careless wiki editing. The cited article does in fact use the term asset voting, but in a significantly different way than Smith uses it.  The article uses the term "asset" in a military sense, a combat or military intelligence resource such as  troops, tanks, reconnaisance aircraft, etc.  The paper applies a voting model where the assets are just voters voting for candidates.  The candidates are not autonomous negotiators for a winner or winners in a second phase of the election.   Assets are not the bargaining chips of the candidates.  Rather, the winner is determined by a system predefined, central command tabulation procedure based on declared positions of the candidates.  Apparently the election is a simple, single-stage plurality election.  In short, this does not validate the usage in the unreliable Smith sources. DCary (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, this discussion would take place on an article Talk page, and I'd want to see a lot more from the paper in question before concluding either way. We now have two apparently independent users who claimed the article was one way, and now one, with more information, claiming it is a different way. And it could take more time to resolve this, in my experience, than we have time left in this AfD. If Cary is correct, I'd expect Celanor and/or Colonel Warden to acknowledge an error; if they disappear, and if nobody else reads the paper, the reference would obviously come out (and note that I took this out on sight, and only relented when it would have taken edit warring to stop it, plus I saw from the abstract that it was possible it was relevant.) As to the point made about "self-published papers" and "mailing lists," perhaps Mr. Cary would care to fix the "problems" with Schulze method which does both. I just read that article today because it's referenced from the WMF board election. It includes self-published material by a series of authors, and explicit references (i.e., "mailing list" is in the text, not merely in the reference) to mailing lists for exactly the same kind of text we have in Asset voting: history of the method, see History of the Schulze method.--Abd (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that Colonel Warden simply made a Google search for "asset voting" and didn't check whether these hits are really about asset voting, as defined in this Wikipedia article, or whether these hits are only accidential juxtapositions of these two words. Yellowbeard (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to jump to conclusions, that's a reasonable speculation. Personally, I'd rather read the article.--Abd (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I had searched for Asset Voting and had found this article and hadn't used it because I couldn't read the article to confirm, but this is the text that shows in the search: "The voting mechanism is split into an asset voting model. and a party algorithm model. ... adopted for both asset voting and party algorithm mod- ..." I find it difficult to read Cary's interpretation into this snippet of text, for this reason: Asset Voting is a method of dealing with vote reassignments in STV elections, that is how Carroll described it, and so is Party-list proportional representation. At this point, I'm not able to reconcile Cary's account with the search result and the comments of Celarnor and Colonel Warden, plus that snippet of text. It's possible that Cary is correct, and it's also possible he, himself, jumped to conclusions. We'll have to see the article to resolve this. The article itself, in its detail, should seal it.--Abd (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a similar paper by the same author.. This article doesn't use the term "asset voting" but similarities in the abstracts make it clear at the outset that the topics are similar. What the authors are doing is applying political science models, voting technologies, to robotics. "Weighted aggregation," I'd start with, could mean Range voting, and, in fact, range voting techniques are used in robotic systems. But I don't have time at the moment to really study the paper that I found. Based on what I've seen so far, though, my suspicion remains that when they mention "asset voting" in their later paper, they mean Asset voting. From multiple searches, I was able to reconstruct this much text from the 2006 article: "The voting mechanism is split into an asset voting model and a party algorithm model. A linearised constant velocity process model and linearised observation model is adopted for both asset voting and party algorithm models. From the system assets’s perspective, what is important is the estimation of the vector of mission objective weights (‘policy position’) of the party algorithm. The party algorithm estimates its own vector of weights as it adapts over time. The state vector at time t may be defined as: ..." However, in the other direction, the article does not appear to cite Smith, the search comes up empty if Smith is included as a search term. This fact would tend to point toward the use of "asset" as being with a different implication. --Abd (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (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.