Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concurrent 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 Delete. Eluchil404 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Concurrent Voting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting, but no reliable sources or independent support of notability, validation, or use of this method. DMacks 17:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR -Icewedge 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, doesn't appear to be OR, if the usage by the NY Times (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00D16F63D5D13738DDDAD0994D9415B868EF1D3) is the same. Burzmali 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently not OR. needs more sources. NYT article confers notability.--Victor falk 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is dated "November 14, 1926" and is about the then ongoing elections of the League of Nations. There is absolutely no connection between the NYT article and the Wikipedia article. Yellowbeard 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a deficiency in the article then, not a cause for deletion. The use of the concept in a context as important as the League of Nation satisfies WP:N.  The article needs a rewrite  and cleanup.  Burzmali 12:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the NYT article doesn't say that the League of Nations used "concurrent voting". Yellowbeard 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep; the article is a stub and needs time to be developed. It can be relisted for deletion if no progress is made by the end of the year. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article can go until someone wishes to write about a verifiable and widespread use of the term, assuming there is one. Accidental juxtaposition of two words in the NYT 80 years ago does not make an encyclopedic topic. Gazpacho 06:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Google books would suggest that the term was once used, and now someone else is trying to reinvent it. The article need a historical perspective added from someone who has access to one of those books. Burzmali 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Today, you get a large number of Google hits for every possible accidental juxtaposition of two words. That doesn't prove anything. Yellowbeard 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article were about this apparently verifiable use of the term, I wouldn't say delete, but that is not the case. Nothing in the article right now can be kept. Gazpacho 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and Gazpacho.--JayJasper 12:47, 25 September 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.