Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sincere expectation criterion (second 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sincere expectation criterion

 * Original research. The term exists only on Wikipedia and an unmoderated mailing list, and the source is a thread from several years ago. The previous nomination got bogged down in a discussion of the merits of the criterion, which is irrelevant because it's original research and has no published source.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would rather see this be an en bloc deletion nomination that includes all Mike Ossipoff's criteria as well (with the possible exception of favorite betrayal criterion and summability criterion), otherwise I can't vote for just this single criterion for NPOV reasons. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You are free to nominate the other pages if you believe, in good faith, that they should not remain on WP. En bloc nominations have a tendency to produce no clear consensus, since some participants will judge the entries as one while others will make individualized decisions. Hence individual noms may be preferable. Regards — Encephalon 07:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Few Google hits. This criterion was mentioned only in a single thread in a single mailing list. This thread is more than 7 years old. And this mailing list is unmoderated.
 * This article is obscure. Even the author of this article is unable to justify his statements about this criterion. Whenever he is asked to explain his claims about whether a given election method satisfies or fails this criterion, he refuses to answer and he claims that all those who don't see that he is right were dishonest and Mike Ossipoff devotees. Markus Schulze 09:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Markus Schulze, if you don't stop with these unfounded personal attacks, then I'll be forced to start a request for comment concerning your behavior. If you simply disagree with my argument on talk:sincere expectation criterion, JUST SAY SO, but don't claim it doesn't exist. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete original research, possible vanity. A voting system with no academic reviews presented, actually an article about one thread on one message board some years ago proposing something which clearly never caught on. Just zis Guy you know? 13:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG. Pavel Vozenilek 15:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable original research. -- Krash (Talk) 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Hope this helps build the consensus that was lacking last time. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 07:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm persuaded by rspeer's comments here and in the DRV. — Encephalon 07:25, 2 March 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.