Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (5th 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 was   no consensus. Opinions are equally divided between keep, merge (although it's not clear where to) and delete, so... no consensus.  Sandstein  13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete: No reliable secondary sources. Markus Schulze 08:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions this criterion. Markus Schulze 05:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect. I see that I said "Keep" at Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (2nd nomination), with a link showing many uses of the term.  The current version has what looks like a reliable secondary source.  I don't think this is really a suitable stand-alone article, but as a used criteria in discussing voting methods it should be mentioned somewhere, such as Tactical_voting .  I see that the other criteria listed at Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion remain deleted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Voting_system_criterion, where there is already a direct mention, referenced to the one decent source. As this criterion is demonstrably used many times according to google, this is a plausible search term.  This target seems to place this criterion in context with others.  I think that the other criteria tend to be bloated with excessively detailed examples - if that stuff doesn't come from reliable sources, it is WP:OR and should be cut back.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Including the old article history, there are now a number of sources which attest to the use of this term. I can also personally attest that on the election-methods discussion list, I've seen literally over a dozen different people (people who often vehemently disagree with each other about many issues) use the abbreviation FBC without even feeling the need to define it, which shows to me that it's well-accepted jargon within that community. I don't think merging is the right idea because, in general, each criterion has its own article here on wikipedia, as that gives a chance to give examples of different systems failing the criterion. Such examples would be annoying trivia in any possible candidate merge articles. I recreated this article as a stub because I knew it would be considered for deletion almost immediately, but if it survives the process, I expect that I and others will expand it in various ways including failure examples. Homunq (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC) ps. Here's another clearly reliable source attesting to the use of the term: a math textbook which includes "Investigate other fairness criteria such as the favorite betrayal criterion..." as a homework problem ... not exactly the kind of source you'd cite in the article, but good evidence that the term has an accepted, notable meaning. pps. I feel that the other criteria originally deleted with this one should remain deleted; they are well-defined, but unlike this one they are not widely-discussed enough to be notable in my judgement.
 * One more source I found: Ossipoff, M., and W. D Smith. “Survey of Voting Methods That Avoid Favorite-betrayal.” Preprint Available at Http://rangevoting. org/FBCsurvey. Html (2005). ... Although this is a preprint and thus not in itself peer-reviewed, it has been cited twice by Steven Brams, an acknowledged expert in the field, in peer-reviewed publications of his; I'd argue that such citation constitutes some weak degree of peer-review. Homunq (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In 2005, Smith and Ossipoff thought about writing a paper on FBC (Survey of Voting Methods that avoid Favorite-Betrayal). But then they never did write such a paper. Markus Schulze 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The term is widely used. There are reliable sources (especially in comparison to the other criteria articles like Majority criterion). --Arno Nymus (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. isfutile:P (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to more general article. Although notable, this is an aspect of something else. Sorry I can not be more specific, but I know almost nothing about the subject. Readers would be better informed with an article that gives the context of the entire topic. Borock (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tactical voting seems like it might be the place to merge. Borock (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever can be sourced, otherwise delete. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The source provided shows that it was coined by the author and there are no other sources to show that the term has caught on. TFD (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "the author"? Certainly not me, the person who created this page; nor Arno Nymus, the other person who contributed significantly. Homunq (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC) To elaborate: I've never met Mike Ossipoff and I only know him from arguing with him on the Election Methods list. I did not participate in any of the previous incarnations of this article or the deletion discussions in any way. I just think it's an article that should exist, in parallel with the other voting system criteria articles. Homunq (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - a manufactured term; fails WP:GNG. Despite the plethora of previous discussions reliable sources have not been produced to stand this up as a notable term. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2012 (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.