Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weak defensive strategy criterion

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weak defensive strategy criterion
This standalone article is practically a stub, original research, term invented/used only by Mike Ossipoff Whig 12:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to vote on this one. There's a number of such voting strategy pages, all cross-linked with each other. So which are notable and which not? I have no idea. Sorry. :-) &mdash; RJH 15:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is not that obscure. Also, Steve Eppley has defined criteria with the same purpose, just different names. If WDSC and SDSC are deleted, there won't be any articles for these concepts. KVenzke 15:33, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * RSpeer, how do you know whether Mike added this? Does it make a difference who added it? Does this page need to be rewritten so as to not quote electionmethods.org directly? And by the way, it seems that a political party is advocating MCA. KVenzke 20:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Barno's suggestion that an election method is not notable until there has been an attempt to adopt it. Voting theory is not all about advocacy. KVenzke 21:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. It looks like this VfD is going to fail for the same reason as Majority Choice Approval: it's crosslinked to a bunch of other things, people say, therefore it should be included. But it's original research, and Mike put those crosslinks there himself, so that doesn't make it any less original research. RSpeer 17:41, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep valid alternative strategy. 203.26.206.129 19:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge all these cross-linked stubs into a single article. Original research, no indication of notability provided.  For a minute I thought this was (another) return of Iasson.  Many political parties advocate many unusual voting methods, usually because they can't win under the existing systems; that doesn't confer notability upon the proposed system, unless there is a constitutional change or at least a referendum garnering nationwide or international attention.  Barno 20:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but note it as non peer-reviewed criteria. Request for Barno:  Please list the "many political parties" who "advocate many unusual voting methods, usually because they can't win under the existing systems".  Then please demonstrate that this is their motive. If you cannot, then please retract your statement as an offhand opinion. --Fahrenheit451 22:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. The pages that are crosslinked to this page are all about other terms invented by Mike Ossipoff. I will change to keep if someone can actually provide a source that uses any of these techniques. --bainer (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Falphin 15:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.