Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequential proportional approval voting (2nd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sequential proportional approval voting
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:G4. Markus Schulze 07:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep, as the reason for prior deletion no longer applies - this article was previously deleted, as it had insufficient sources, and was therefore deemed 'original research'. This is no longer the case, and while the article is substantially the same as before (because the method itself has not changed!) there are now articles and papers about it including one from 2014 regarding algorithmic complexity. In addition to this, it appears to fit within the project Elections and Referendums, as noted on its talk page by Number 57, which is aiming to, among other things, improve coverage of various voting methods. There are in fact more references to it out there, but I wasn't sure where in the article to put them or whether they would be necessary. Felixaldonso (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More references now added. Felixaldonso (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Original AfD appears to have been for "Original research. Possibly a hoax". Given article now refs 4 academic papers and a book and is clearly neither of those things, WP:G4 ("A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy") is inapplicable. No-one doubts User:MarkusSchulze and Schulze Beatpaths' brilliance, but that doesn't mean any voting system he didn't personally invent doesn't deserve an article (if it satisfies WP:N, which this appears to). -- simxp (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Keep The article is currently well sourced. The reasons for the delete votes in the previous AfD have been addressed. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2015 (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.