Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Score Runoff 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.  Sandstein  08:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Score Runoff Voting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Original research. This proposal has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This method has never been used anywhere. There has never been an initiative to adopt this method. This method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view. Markus Schulze 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the reasons offered for deletion are not accurate - there is no original research; all information is drawn from significant coverage in an independent reliable source. An initiative drive is currently underway to adopt this system at both the county and statewide level in Oregon. This method is clearly interesting from a scientific point of view, as evidenced by the deletion proposer's and other notable voting experts current participation in discussion on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardopolo (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. A public mailing list is hardly a reliable source. Markus Schulze 05:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. To be clear, the "reliable source" is the IVN independent source referenced in the original article (IVN has close to half a million followers on social media and reportedly 20M article reads a month). The election science mailing list you participate in is simply evidence that your statement "This method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view" is demonstrably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nardopolo (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This method has first been proposed on 2 October 2016, about two months ago. Markus Schulze 18:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This method was first publicly proposed on the Election Science list more than two years ago and prompted a vigorous discussion between luminaries in the field, as well as ongoing development and research.Nardopolo (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did this "vigorous discussion between luminaries and ongoing development and research" lead to any publication in a peer-reviewed journal or to any adoption of this proposal? Markus Schulze 08:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. A publication does not need to be a peer-reviewed journal to meet GNG. The vigorous discussion has led to more vigorous discussion and vetting. And yes, this system has been chosen for a present petition drive at the county and state level in Oregon. Please retract your request for deletion.Nardopolo (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON, discussion above makes clear that there are none of the multiple reliably-published, independent and in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. Online forums and petition drives do not count for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I don't see anything that would make this notable from a political scientist's or a mathematician's perspective. Perhaps there is something from a more popular/journalism perspective, but it isn't shown in the references right now. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:58, 22 December 2016 (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.