Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llull winner


 * 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 of the debate was ambiguous. Argument for deletion is that "Llull winner" is a neologism and that the article is original research. Meegs has argued that the content is valid, but that the title is wrong. Stifle has argued that this can be redirected to to Condorcet winner.

I will not redirect this to the Condorcet article, because without any mention of Llull there, such a redirect may be confusing to the readers, and Meigs has argued that there are subtle differences. Also a link is provided in the article as a reference, so I am not convinced that this constitutes original research either. It is true that "Llull winner" does not Google, and is therefore an unlikely search term. "Llull voting system" howeverhas been used in at least one paper, so I am calling this a move to Llull voting system. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Llull winner
A neologism that means the same thing as Condorcet winner, by the author of Condorcet-Hare Method. 0 Google hits.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just removed a complaint I had about the article's reference, because the reference turns out to be valid. Unfortunately, I did it on a computer where my girlfriend Cmouse was logged in. So this isn't a case of my comment being randomly altered by someone else. Please note that, ordinarily, Cmouse and I are different people.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  00:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are no hits for the exact title, so perhaps the article should be renamed, but the article is valuable and verifiable. In addition to the reference, you get lots of relevant hits about his voting system searching for Llull + voting. ×Meegs 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It means the same thing as Condorcet winner, as far as I can tell, and no matter what it means, it's original terminology that Wikipedia should not be used to promote. Also, of course you get hits when you look up Llull and voting; he's the earliest known voting theorist. Naming your original research after a notable person like Llull does not make it notable itself. Such an argument was made and withdrawn by someone at Condorcet-Hare Method, an article by the same author.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a description of a voting scheme whose winner satisfies the Condorcet criterion, but the system itself includes number of features (e.g. all-pairs voting vs. voting with a single ranking and allowing indifference between a pair candidates) that are not necessarily present in other systems fitting the criterion. As I said, I'd prefer to rename and keep the article about this system as it is notable and based on secondary sources, but I'll go-along with a merge (& condensation) to any of several destinations including Ramon Llull and Condorcet criterion. ×Meegs 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how much you like it, it's original research being used to define a neologism, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The secondary source does not support the definition, it is only used in the article to cite the fact that Llull came up with the Condorcet criterion before Condorcet did (which is mentioned at Voting system). The fact that some random guy named a definition that nobody else on the Internet uses after Llull should not be part of the article on Ramon Llull.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not want to keep the title which is an original creation. There are numerous higher-order sources for the article's content — the description of his voting system, and if possible, I'd like to find a place to keep it. ×Meegs 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Condorcet winner. Redirects are cheap. If you want to point out that this guy didn't get credit for some development, stick it at the end of that article. Stifle 09:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism. - Andre Engels 10:40, 27 January 2006 (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.