Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (6th 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   delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Delete Re-post of deleted material. See: Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion and Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (4th nomination). Original research; none of the papers in the references section has ever been published. Markus Schulze 09:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment, it should be noted by the closing admin that the Delete !voter above has heavily promoted the Schulze method, which this article criticises. No opinion either way on this article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment to Lankiveil: Actually, I had also nominated the comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems article although this article was very positive about the Schulze method. Actually, the latter article claimed that the Schulze method was the best alternative to instant-runoff voting. Markus Schulze 13:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, this article is non-notable and original research. This article had already been deleted twice in the past. The only reason why this article hadn't been deleted the other three times is that the supporters of this article were canvassing outside of Wikipedia. See e.g. this mail. Markus Schulze 14:05, 13 October 2013 (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.

Note: This was discussed here and undeleted. Homunq (࿓) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)