Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Party and Representative 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. I have taken some time reading through this discussion, the article, and the linked sources. The article seems to be mainly OR and lacks in sources that directly address this subject as a coherent proposal. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Direct Party and Representative Voting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete Original research. Advocacy. Markus Schulze 18:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Yes, the article could use better writing, and may contain some original research and/or advocacy. But the subject of the article is notable, having gained traction in Canada, and the article does cite sources. C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't vote here because I don't think I am allowed to (as I am the one who started the article). But, I will work on cleaning it up very soon. I am very open to getting rid of all of the Original research and/or Advocacy that is found in the article. Please help me figure out exactly which part should be deleted and I will do so. If you wish, you can tell me on the Talk page for the article at this link. Or if you wish you can tell me here. Thanks for your input.Boyd Reimer (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to! I think what the nominator is trying to say is that the article needs to describe its subject in an encyclopedic (i.e. neutral) manner, and needs to cite sources (inline if possible) to support claims. But I personally think the subject, with a little prodding, could very well make a valid article. C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   23:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Of course, also the creator of an article is allowed to vote in a deletion discussion. Markus Schulze 08:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Thank you all for your patience. I will improve the article soon - Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your input. Two heads are better than one. Below is just a preliminary response. I will add more supporting links soon, when I have more time. I will also improve the article with more links. I have already added more evidence of the public discussion of DPR voting in the Talk page of the new article at this link: Talk:Direct_Party_and_Representative_Voting


 * First question: Is the article against Wikipedia’s policy on “Advocacy?” I will answer that question in two parts.


 * Part A. Is the article advocating for one political party over another?


 * The public consultation, in which DPR voting was mentioned, was co-hosted by the NDP and the Toronto chapter of a non-partisan organization called Fair Vote Canada. The people attending were given a survey which contained a question on DPR voting (also called “PPV”). The survey was “real-time” and was filled out by the audience during the lecture, with pauses from the lecturer, Craig Scott. If the DPR voting system were in place in Canada, the NDP party would lose seats, not gain them. This is explained in the 8 min video - which is posted in the Wikipedia article.


 * Proportional Representation – of several types - is supported by leading figures from 3 parties in Canada, as the Fair Vote Canada website shows. Among them are the current leader of the NDP Party, Thomas Mulcair, two former leaders of the Liberal Party, Stéphane Dion, and Bob Rae, 2013 Liberal leadership candidate (won second place) Joyce Murray (won second place), Green Party leader Elizabeth May.See this link to a CBC News media story Also see this video with 3 parties speaking Both of these two links happened on the same day (morning of) the Sep 19, 2013 event in which Craig Scott mentioned DPR voting in a public consultation in Toronto.


 * Part B. Is the article advocating for one voting system over another?


 * The article explains how the system works, like any encyclopedia should. Perhaps the wording, in some places, is too much like advocating for that system, and I will change it.


 * Second question: Is the article Original Research?:
 * See below edit of March 27 ( I am revising and editing my own comment, if that's okay with everyone.)


 * Thank you all for your input. Two heads are better than one. Above was just a preliminary response. I will add more supporting links soon, when I have more time. I will also improve the article with more links. Sincerely Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an edit to my own comment addressing the issue of “Original Research": (In the last few days I have improved the article which may now make it more acceptable.) In 2010, Stephen Johnson is the inventor, and primary source.
 * Then there are at least two secondary sources: 1. In 2011, the blog - “On Procedure and Politics.” 2. In 2013, a public speech by Craig Scott (who taught law). Admittedly, the 2011 example is more verifiable than the 2013 one. Nevertheless, I have provided a photo of the copy of the survey which Craig Scott used in his public speech. ...More improvements are coming... - Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't take this proposal seriously. I even doubt that those people, who promote this proposal, take this proposal seriously.
 * I have made the observation that, shortly after an election, people propose all kinds of ad hoc methods (i.e. methods without any historic or theoretic justification) to discredit the winner of these elections; saying: "Candidate A won the elections. But we only have to modify the used election method this little bit, and some other candidate would have won." In my opinion, Wikipedia should concentrate on serious proposals. Wikipedia should not harbour articles on nonserious proposals that have been made only for tendentious reasons.
 * The only point of this article is to say that the election result would have been different if proportional representation had been used (instead of single-member districts). But this point is trivial.
 * There is not a single hit in Google Books. There is not a single hit in Google Scholar.
 * All references are non-notable or dubious (in so far as it is unclear whether they are really about Direct Party and Representative Voting).
 * All the mentioned supporters are non-notable. Markus Schulze 09:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Just now I made a crucial edit and added another crucial reference in which Craig Scott (politician) is referring to “proportional parliamentary voting.”


 * This time I have a reference which is both from a notable person, and also verifiable (linkable online) at the same time. It also directly refers to “proportional parliamentary voting.” (You can see it for yourself.) This responds solidly to the original criticism of Original research.


 * If you want I can change the name of the article to “proportional parliamentary voting.”
 * But Wikipedia has rules about how to name an article when there could be two names to that article. That is a separate debate apart from deleting the article altogether.


 * This reference shows Craig Scott (a lawyer among other things) encountering another opinion from another lawyer, Wilf Day. This exchange between these two lawyers is healthy because they are critiquing each other. Craig Scott makes a comment that “proportional parliamentary voting” would be difficult to implement in Canada without a change in the constitution. But nevertheless, he maintains that the main tool of “proportional parliamentary voting,” which is “weighting” still retains value and could still be useful in other ways in the Canadian political system – even without constitutional change.


 * Wikipedia is not only a place for things that are used in practice. Wikipedia also is a place for things that are theories. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Voting_systems
 * At this link…: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Voting_systems
 * …This is the first sentence: "This category is for different theoretical models. See also electoral systems category for details of actual current or historical implementations." (end quote)
 * According to Wikipedia rules, the criteria for an article is not that a voting system be used. Instead, the criteria are that the references be verifiable and by a notable person. This last reference is both verifiable (linkable) and contains a quote from a notable person in which the phrase “proportional parliamentary voting” is used.


 * More improvements are coming to address further the criticism of "advocacy". Thank you for your patience.


 * Sincerely, Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just now I updated Direct Party and Representative Voting again. Boyd Reimer (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There is not a single hit in Google Scholar for "Direct Party and Representative Voting". There is not a single hit in Google Books for "Direct Party and Representative Voting". Markus Schulze 18:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 04:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * delete I am getting nothing on this except what looks like someone going around to every possible blog out there and dropping comments that say "all our problems would be solved if we went to this new system." Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs to be re-written to be more encyclopedic, but the subject appears to be a serious proposal with legitimate secondary coverage. I was prepared to vote for deletion until I saw the CBC article. Orser67 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The mentioned CBC article is about proportional representation in general and not about Direct Party and Representative Voting in particular. The Direct Party and Representative Voting proposal is not even mentioned in the CBC article. Markus Schulze 19:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The most important reference is not the reference from CBC. Instead, it is reference # 4 in the article. To go to that reference click here, then scroll down to the comments from Craig Scott (politician), then press "Read more" to see his entire comment.


 * This link is not just an ordinary blog. Instead, it's an "online citizen-engagement platform, [in which] NDP Democratic Reform Critic Craig Scott seeks to engage the residents of Toronto-Danforth and people across Canada in issues of national and local importance." (This quoted description is from Craig Scott himself.)


 * This entire platform is created by the notable person, Craig Scott (politician). You can see that he created this site by looking at the website address. Then he comments in his own platform.


 * In his comment on his own platform, Craig Scott, a notable person, is directly referring to "Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)," or, as he calls it in his comment, "Proportional Parliamentary Voting." The topic of discussion is the DPR website. Verify that by doing the following: 1. At the top of the conversation thread, click on "View More Comments" 2. Under "Boyd R." click on "Read More." That previous comment is clearly about the "Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)" because it links to the DPR website, and that's virtually all this one sentence comment does.


 * (Even though I am the "Boyd R." who got involved in that conversation thread with my one sentence two months ago, I couldn't possibly have controlled the comments of Wilf D. and Craig Scott. They are both lawyers, and, as you can see, are very independent thinkers. Frankly, I've never met Wilf D., and I've only met MP Craig Scott twice very briefly at public events where he was consulting with the broader public. I'm not in his riding, and I'm not his constituent, so he's not appeasing my vote. I was at his Sep 19, 2013 public event. That's where I first learned of DPR voting .... from MP Craig Scott.)


 * Consider these key questions:


 * Is there any dispute that Craig Scott is notable?


 * Is there any dispute that he is directly and publicly discussing "Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting)," or, as he calls it in his comment, "Proportional Parliamentary Voting?"


 * Is there any dispute that Scott's public discussion is verifiable - not only to you, but to all Wikipedia readers?


 * Is there any dispute that Scott's discussion is a secondary source? (Primary source is the DPR site authored by Stephen Johnson.)


 * I am confident that your answers to all of these questions will be no. If so, then your answers (not mine) will remove Original Research as a grounds for the deletion of this article. - Sincerely - Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC); Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 10 April 2014 (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.