Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)

Comments have been copied here to preserve them and aid readability of the day's AFDs.

This article was created for POV purposes. There are very few references (10), and all are weak. Of the few references given one is "electowiki", a wiki (which are not considered credible sources per wikipedia policy). Another reference is written by the "Center for Range Voting" a POV group. And another source is "Behind the ballot box: A citizen's guide to voting systems" by Amy, Douglas J. This book has only been cited 3 times, and has no positive reviews, is not an important work, and not considered influencial in the field of political science or international relations. This is also a fork article that draws attention by claiming it's about "controversies". Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have notified all editors about this AfD, who either voted in the previous AfD, or edited the subject article or its Talk page, who had not been previously notified or commented, and who are not blocked or vanished. That's a total of 12 editors, some of whom may have long been inactive.--Abd (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - for reasons stated above. I should also mention that the creator of this article User:Captain Zyrain has had an administrator express that they believe this editor is a sockpuppet (see editors page). Another strong supporter to keep this article User:Abd has mentioned in the previous nomination for deletion that they are involved with the Center for Range Voting as an advisor. The Center for Range Voting is highly critical of instant-runoff voting. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The creator of the article was not a sock puppet of anyone. That user retired, and, quite some time later, and legitimately, came back as a new account. Complex case, but sock puppetry charges here are totally irrelevant. Likewise my relationship or non-relationship with the Center for Range Voting has nothing to do with this Afd, so why the nominator (who has, unusually, !voted in addition to nominating, which is improper) mentions me is unclear, except that I may begin to infer that political motives are behind this AfD, as have been behind many AfDs in the voting methods area, see Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard.--Abd (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a nominator I am allowed to vote just like everyone else. I don't know why you'd think otherwise, ask an administrator. And a sock puppet charge is serious esp when done by an administrator, and shows that this article was created by someone that may have been banned in the past. Your work for Center for Range Voting is relevant since it shows a conflict of interest. I'm also an established wikipedia edtitor and have had an account for more than a year, and think your assumption that this deletetion nomination is somehow driven by a political motive. And I don't see how User:Yellowbeard is involved. Although he has nominated this article for deletion once in the past, I am nominating this article not him, and am doing it by my opwn judgement towards this article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

''The following statement by User:Abd is very misleading. They said in a previous deletion nomination that they had been an advisor, but here they take that back. They also mention my edit history as being minor. I have been editing for about two years now, and have done much work, most not related to any voting systems. User:Abd also compares me to a user they think is a sock puppet, and I find this both misleading and rude. And I have placed a notice on many other wikipedia editors where I don't know their preference for this article. I had even placed a notive on the instant-runoff voting articles talk page. I think it's lying to say I am vote stacking. User:Abd is very misleading and even lying.'' QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

project areas, including the talk page for the instant-runoff voting article. So I find it unfair to say I'm vote stack when I've been notifying many people about this nomination.
 * The issue of the nominator voting is certainly minor. I've seen this comment before from other experienced users, though. Generally a nomination is considered a Delete !vote already, and nominators add other comments without adding !votes. As to a sock puppet charge, the creator of the article was never banned for sock puppetry, nor for POV-pushing. He has not been a user of multiple accounts, except when blocked. His creation of this article was never challenged, and it was done because other editors involved with the instant-runoff voting article supported the idea. He did create the article, simply being helpful, but was a minor participant in shaping it. He was, by the way, a supporter of instant-runoff voting, though, as a Wikipedia editor, a strong believer in NPOV, as am I. I assume good faith, but the bringing in of irrelevant ad hominem arguments as the bulk of comment is, as I said, suspicious. I'll leave it at that. Yes, QAS registered more than a year ago, but only very recently became active, accumulating, quickly, some civility warnings. In that he resembles User:Yellowbeard, who is involved for two reasons: first, he was the previous nominator, and he was a known tactical nominator, frequently AfDing articles apparently perceived to cover subjects inconvenient to some promoters of IRV. That includes Center for Range Voting, which may or may not have been notable back then (2006) but which is now. I have not "worked for" the Center. I'm an independent writer and some of what I've written has been used by the Center, so, again, this is pure irrelevance. I will acknowledge being a critic of instant-runoff voting, as are many (actually, most) knowledgeable about voting methods. The article edits have not been dominated by critics. I specifically supported the unblock of Tbouricius, a well-known IRV advocate, which fact was cited by the unblocking administrator, and he's been one of the editors. My belief was that we cannot find NPOV if all significant POVs aren't represented. One more connection between QAS and Yellowbeard, and it is, to be sure, thin: QAS notified three editors of this AfD, specifically, Tomruen, Yellowbeard, and Paladinwannabe2. The first two are supporters of IRV (Tomruen has listed himself as associated with a chapter of FairVote -- this is not a charge of COI, but merely a note regarding his expressed positions, and Yellowbeard's position is clear from arguments he has presented in his many AfDs and other behaviors) and the third has not edited Wikipedia since October 2007. From his single edit to the subject article, we might guess he is a supporter of IRV, because he gave an unsourced argument commonly made for the method. Single edit? Why did QAS notify those three editors, and not editors who had made far more edits? So there is some possibility of an attempt to vote-stack here. I was considered significant enough to actually discuss in the nomination and comment, but not to notify? I saw it because I watch User talk:Tomruen as we have had many conversations (mostly cooperative).--Abd (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV fork, no demonstrated need for a separate article on the controversies, any notable and verifiable controversies can more than adequately be covered at instant-runoff voting. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A POV fork and an obvious OR magnet; a flawed concept for the article. Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. For all of the reasons listed above. --Endless Dan 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator introduces no new arguments not considered in prior AfD. Article was created with editor consensus (including pro- and con-IRV editors) to allow deeper exploration of controversy on the topic than would otherwise be appropriate and necessary in the main article. However, I'd be personally happy with Merge and Redirect, though it could lead to edit warring in the main article. Defects in sourcing -- there are fewer sources than I remember but I have not reviewed the history -- should be addressed through ordinary editorial process, by removal or proper sourcing of unsourced material, and are irrelevant to notability unless no reliable sources exist. Controversies over voting methods can be quite complex and the necessary depth to report on them inappropriate for the main article; this is a classic reason for a Controversies article, allowing summary style to take back what is most notable to the main article. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * some points about the article and its design. This is an article about controversy. The material in the article could, indeed, go into Instant-runoff voting, and originally that is where it was, but, increasingly, edit wars began over nuances and balance. Further, when the fact being discussed is arguments, i.e., what is notably being said about a thing, sourcing requirements can shift somewhat. For example, citations from FairVote, which used to be plentiful on Wikipedia, have largely been removed, because Fairvote is an advocacy organization and is not expected to be neutral, it selectively presents and frames facts and opinion. However, when the topic is the controversy, and specifically, what arguments are being presented in attempts to influence public opinion, I have not objected to FairVote citations and, in fact, they are, in the field, authoritative as to what arguments are being presented. And the same may apply to some material from the Center for Range Voting (which should have an article now, there is much more notice in the media than there was back in 2006). The key policy is verifiability, and if the statement in the article is that a certain argument is being made, not that what is being argued is a fact in itself, something like the book mentioned by the nominator, or, more notably, Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone, may be acceptable sourcing. And AfDs aren't the place to determine this, consensus of editors directly, or in wider comment and review, are far more appropriate. If sources aren't adequate, the remedy is to remove the unsourced material, and only if this leaves nothing, with no hope of finding anything, would deletion be appropriate (and, even then, merge and redirect may be better options than delete).
 * Undecided Yes, there was an old deletion debate that failed. I'm not prepared to defend content quality (since I think this article is largely poorly written, 1/3 trash thought, even as I made my small attempts to improve), but needs improvements is not a reason for deletion to me. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup - There are plenty of references to establish notability, and the main article is already too big to merge everything useful from this one. Still needs a great deal of cleanup, though, starting with the currently segregated layout. --Explodicle (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The layout may look segregated, but, in fact, it is only classified. The article is about "controversies," and has been organized around "arguments," which are sorted in an obvious manner, i.e., as pro or con, but the arguments are presented -- or should be presented, it's been some time since I closely reviewed the article -- in an NPOV manner, and arguments should be attributed and asserted facts reliably sourced. If not, that's a matter for editorial improvement, as Tomruen correctly noted. Nobody has been edit warring over this article, and editing has not been dominated by any POV, as far as I've known. Cooperating editors include a prominent proponent of IRV (Tbouricius, who is actually COI, if I'm correct), a much less known critic (myself), and an editor who has been associated with FairVote but who is probably not formally COI, Mr. Ruen. And others. Personally, I care far more about NPOV than I do about any personal position; my history as a critic informs me regarding the arguments in the field and their nuances, but the editors have been able to cooperate beyond their individual POVs. Not always easy, but that's what is needed for NPOV: there is no NPOV, as to balance, without consensus from those willing to cooperate among those with particular POVs. Depth perception requires two POVs.--Abd (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The layout may look segregated, but, in fact, it is only classified. The article is about "controversies," and has been organized around "arguments," which are sorted in an obvious manner, i.e., as pro or con, but the arguments are presented -- or should be presented, it's been some time since I closely reviewed the article -- in an NPOV manner, and arguments should be attributed and asserted facts reliably sourced. If not, that's a matter for editorial improvement, as Tomruen correctly noted. Nobody has been edit warring over this article, and editing has not been dominated by any POV, as far as I've known. Cooperating editors include a prominent proponent of IRV (Tbouricius, who is actually COI, if I'm correct), a much less known critic (myself), and an editor who has been associated with FairVote but who is probably not formally COI, Mr. Ruen. And others. Personally, I care far more about NPOV than I do about any personal position; my history as a critic informs me regarding the arguments in the field and their nuances, but the editors have been able to cooperate beyond their individual POVs. Not always easy, but that's what is needed for NPOV: there is no NPOV, as to balance, without consensus from those willing to cooperate among those with particular POVs. Depth perception requires two POVs.--Abd (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete for reasons stated - POV article now being defended by someone a) with a conflict of interest and b) trying to muddy the waters by accusing people of being sockpuppets. --87.114.34.110 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I struck this comment, because this IP is the blocked User:Fredrick day. The only sock accusation here was from the nominator. Sock puppetry is irrelevant to this AfD, which would proceed even if, for example, it were proven that the nominator were Yellowbeard, and I don't think that likely.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC) IP addressess are commonly used by many individuals, which is why unlike user names they cannot be blocked permanently. You do not know that this is the user you claim it to be. Try something like that again and I'll report you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: the article is a POV fork. It's admittedly done better than most POV forks, and I did edit it some time back to nudge it closer to NPOV, but at its heart it is still an essential violation of WP forking rules, and it still shows a good amount of POV bias.  The choice of sources perhaps shows this best.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No opinion if it should be deleted or not, but if it is, any npov, referenced, sections left should be merged as appropriate. — xaosflux  Talk  00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. Do not delete.  A decent article could be written, but it hasn’t been done.  The target article doesn’t even have a good summary.  Improve the controversy section of Instant-runoff voting before trying to expand into a whole article.

While there are occurrences of discussion about controversy associated with IRV, there don’t seem to be reliable independent secondary sources discussing “Instant-runoff voting controversies” per se. Possibly, this article can stand on the basis that it is a spin-off article. Instant-runoff voting is already big. If not, it is still clearly a real topic, with sources, and so merging is appropriate. Whether kept or merged, a fair bit of editorial work is required. The list of pros, then list of cons style is not good, and overall it reads too much like OR. For a controversial topic, in line citations are especially important. NB these criticisms are not reasons for deletions.

POV allegations are easy to make, can be fixed. POV as a criterion for deletion is a POV battling tactic and is inappropriate. There is no reason to suppress this information. To the extent that there is a fork of content, POV or otherwise, the duplicated content should be merged, not deleted.

Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate. This is a controversial subject, and POV exists. This means that care is needed, not deletion. We do not censor controversial subjects.

If kept, a serious cleanup is required. I can’t see it being fixed in a week. Perhaps a user is interested in userfying? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate the comment by SmokeyJoe about making a better controversy section in the IRV article, first, however, this article was actually started, partly, with the hope that having a more thorough examination of the controversies would make it easier to write that controversies section. Quite a bit of effort was put into doing just what SmokeyJoe suggested, and the editors involved came to consensus: create the subarticle, because the necessary detail to balance the arguments was more than the main article could bear. This is a political debate, and political debates tend to be dominated by simple sound bites, almost slogans. Reduces Negative Campaigning can be said as an argument for IRV in three words. Responding to that, examining that, presenting available sourced fact or notable argument about that, takes far, far more than three words. The article originally had "Reduces Negative Campaigning." Period. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SmokeyJoe. My own plan for the article, not realized yet, was to develop it as an exposition in depth on the controversies that arise in the political and technical debate over IRV, and then take that back -- what is most notable -- into the IRV article using summary style. The arguments in the article started in the IRV article, but attempts to balance arguments there proved extraordinarily difficult. There are a number of arguments where the argument might be stated in a few words, and *is* stated in a few words, in political polemic. And it's spin, crafted to generate a desired impression through oversimplified and possibly deceptive implications. An example, actually, is the very name of the method, "Instant-runoff voting." It is political spin. It's not the name that the method was known as for more than a hundred years of its history, "preferential voting," in the U.S. It's actually a neologism, a name designed to promote a certain impression, to make how the method works seem familiar. This idea that IRV simulates what people are familiar with (i.e., top-two runoff) is deceptive. It behaves very differently from top-two runoff and produces different results, and that can now clearly be seen, since we have real election results in the U.S., since 2004, in places which were using top-two runoff before. Now, this, here, is perhaps "original research," written off the top of my head. My point is not, here, to argue that, say, the name should be changed, but to point out how simplified language can be quite deceptive. The name was invented by a friend of the Director of FairVote and promoted specifically as a device for selling it. (By the way, in San Francisco, the most notable place using the method, they call it Ranked Choice Voting, not "IRV," and that is quite close to the original name, for "preferential voting" really refers to the ballot form, and there are many different ways of analyzing such ballots. Now, trying to explain this kind of stuff, even when completely established with reliable source, in the IRV article, was constantly met with "This is too much detail." I haven't been active with the articles lately, and the main article has, to some extent, backslid, in a number of ways. But the establishment of the Controversies article was an example of cooperation between the editors in spite of different POVs. And pieces of it were done properly. As to userfying, if it is deleted, I'd ask for a copy anyway, so that material from it, including material from its history that may have been removed by certain editors without proper attention being paid, could be put back in the main article. But I'd predict some difficulty with that. As has been noted, the main article is already long. (I'm quite reluctant to put much work, more than adding a couple of sources, into reorganizing an article that is facing AfD; I've been there, done that, and seen all of it disappear.) --Abd (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The CRV is an advocacy group, not whatever a "POV group" as nominator wants to portray. Quirky has been several allegations about the title of the article, a book used as a reference without supplying anything substantive, any proof of the allegations.  This was a very ill-conceived nomination.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The nominator considered sourcing to the Center for Range Voting to be improper, but if we look at what was sourced, it was, in fact, proper. "Other reformers, such as Range voting and Condorcet method advocates, don't consider "core support" a meaningful criterion.[4]" So the reference was to allow (partial) verification of a statement about what "other reformers" claim. The attribution could be more clear and more specific, but the source is not improper. The Center for Range Voting is notable. The recent book, Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone, does discuss the controversy, and FairVote, and the Center for Range Voting, and many of the arguments. I only recently obtained this book, which was only published a few months ago; I or others may find it useful to ground the article with it as a source. (Notable author, major publisher, with lots of media comment on it, for example, the New York Times. Or see Mother Jones.) The book and both media articles discuss the work of Warren Smith, the founder of the Center for Range Voting.) --Abd (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete and Merge any relevant content into the main article on IRV, and turn this page into a redirect. Controversy forks are POV/troll magnets and are generally not advised. I haven't seen nor can I think of any reasons why this specific fork should be an exception. Yilloslime (t) 04:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This would violate the GFDL. See WP:MAD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have changed my !vote to Merge and redirect. Yilloslime (t) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

KEEP --


 * "This article was created for POV purposes." Which POV purposes, pray tell?


 * "Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article." Please explain to this simpleton exactly how this is all so misleading.

--NBahn (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The title is misleading because it uses the word "controversies", this is a weasel word because there haven't been any controversies related to IRV. Sinmply having some people say they don't like IRV doesn't make it a controversy. That is misleading. Besides, any major complaints or praise need to be in the main article not in a POV fork. It seems you're bothered by my statements, I don't mean to offend anyone with this nomination and am sorry if you feel I am attacking you personally, I am not. I simply don't believe this article is POV or built off of real references. Please feel free to check all references. The ones I highlighted are only a few problem ones. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are active campaigns in the United States to implement "instant-runoff voting." There are arguments being made in these campaigns, there is an advocacy organization which has generated some of them. There are other people claiming that (1) the status quo is fine, or (2) there are other, cheaper reforms that work better. There are disagreements over the political and economic impact of the method. If you say there is no controversy, I must conclude that, though well-meaning, you are apparently not informed. Did you read the article you nominated and look at the sources? I don't think there is a single argument in the Controversies argument that is "I don't like IRV." However, I've seen statements, using more academic language, in peer-reviewed journals. I haven't put that in because I don't think it relevant, generally, that someone likes or doesn't like IRV. But does IRV resolve the spoiler effect? If so, at what cost? If it resolves the spoiler effect, could it cause more serious problems? (I can RS that, in fact, it's already in the IRV article, last I looked.) I've started adding better references, and certainly quite a bit was said in the article that wasn't referenced, but these statements, generally, were simply of things well-known to students of the topic, which is why they weren't promptly taken out. When I see a statement in an article that I know is true, I don't necessarily stop everything, my kids can wait, I've got to put in a source. Anyone can put in the source, and that's what citation-needed tags are for. There was one cn tag in the article that I believe I removed, having provided source for it. The decision of what are appropriate sources for what kinds of claims is an editorial decision, and, for example, I've seen a knee-jerk assumption that a blog can't be used. That's because blogs generally can't be used. There are exceptions, and thus we leave editorial decisions to the editor working on the article. AfD is *not* a place to make editorial decisions. --Abd (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Instant Runoff Voting. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with disputes over what should and should not be included. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost always in favor of Merge/Redirect as a better solution than deletion, because it leaves history intact for the benefit of future generations. This is not, however, a "POV Fork." See WP:FORK. Here is what a POV Fork is: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. This article was created for exactly the opposite of what is stated. It was created *on the topic of arguments about IRV* in order to enable the more thorough examination that it takes to express balanced NPOV on that topic. Many of the arguments, especially the pro-IRV arguments designed by political consultants, have simple, sound-bite forms that are designed to promote a certain impression. Proponents would insert these into the IRV article, and opponents would alternate between (1) taking them out or (2) adding sourced material to them to balance them. The latter requires, often, a lot more words. The article already was considered too long by some. Hence an article on the arguments was created. To do it right, it's too much detail for the main article. Otherwise, it would be in the main article. What belongs in the main article is a summary style exposition of the material in the subarticle, with a reference (as there is) to the more thorough discussion there. The intention of all who worked on the creation of the Controversies article was that it be NPOV, not that it be a place to stuff either criticism of IRV or promotion of it. If notable, both belong in it, i.e., the arguments used belong it it, attributed, and then the discussion of the arguments should be propertly sourced. This was an editorial decision made by the editors working on the IRV main article. Frankly, I'd rather, personally, take more critical material back into the IRV article, and more exists now than did a few months ago. But I also value consensus, and this *was* a consensus solution. None of the editors objected, except User:Tomruen was a little grumpy. Even the pro-IRV sock puppet User:MilesAgain worked on this article, as did User:Tbouricius, a former Vermont legislator and a published author in the field. If it is a "POV fork," what POV? I'm one of the best known critics of IRV, and I think we should have the article, and it was actually a proponent who created it, and most of the edits have been from proponents, I think. --Abd (talk)


 * Some editors seem to have the opinion that POV forks are prohibited. Now, this article is *not* a POV fork, but it is about arguments for and against the use of Instant runoff voting. Both. Nevertheless, from WP:FORK: "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. Now, what happened here? There was a Controversies section in the article. It was, by agreement among the editors, spun off into the subject article. I'm aware of a fair number of these. When a main topic becomes big enough that notable fact cannot be included, it's too much detail, subarticles are created. Sometimes the reason is WP:UNDUE. For example, take ADHD. There is notable opinion, from experts, published, that the disorder doesn't exist. But the strong majority view is that it does. So the main article cannot mention the debate or controversy more than with a sentence indicating that it exists, pointing to the Controversies article that was created. If the arguments were actually given, it would be undue weight. In the article on controversies article, undue weight is not violated by devoting space to the controversy. In an article on the shape of the earth, belief in a flat earth either deserves no mention or very little. But an article on Flat earth can explore it. And does. --Abd (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In about an hour, I found and added four reliable sources for arguments and claims in the article, and if I had time, I'd continue. There is plenty of material; just searching for "instant runoff voting negative campaigning" quickly turned up an argument about that from the Oakland City Attorney, published as an opinion piece in the Oakland Tribune. I think one of the problems here is that quite a few things are said in this article that can look like they are POV, when, in fact, they are either fact, or notable argument, and belong in the article. Because this article is about arguments, it looks like a POV fork, especially if you don't read the whole article, but just look at one section. But with each argument is, generally, both pro and con positions and relevant facts; editorial consensus on this should truly be NPOV. I'm *not* trying at this point to "clean up" the article, because POV balance is involved, and that should be done when there are a number of editors participating. This is not a job for Super Editor, able to leap tall Editorial Problems with a single brilliant synthesis, fully sourced and, mirable dieu, enjoying consensus. I just put in some sources for what was already there.--Abd (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just removed six or seven of those sources for not meeting our criteria on reliablity (some are wikis, others are on self-published sites and consitute original research). I'd add for an independent editor to review my removals. I have academic access and will be checking the academic sources listed later. --87.114.139.72 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I think it shows an obvious bias that User:Abd would ad references to tryand keep the article, but didn't bother to remove references that were obviously not credible sources such as the wiki reference (even though I had already pointed it out). It's also very talling that User:Abd tried to ignore that the creator of this article is suspected of being a sock puppet by an admin, but has also called several user sock puppet even when this can't be proven. User:Abd has already stated that they are an advisor for a group that is anti-instant-runoff voting. This user is biased, and shows a clear conflict of interest. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm biased, indeed, in favor of developing content by consensus. This is a hot topic, and I'm not going to make as my personal priority removing improperly sourced material, if it is such, when I know that the material and the sources are *correct*. Someone else can do that, instead of complaining about what I don't do. The only user I've called a sock puppet (not many) is Fredrick day, who is a block-evading editor, currently active from this IP range, and historically very, very interested in trying to disrupt anything I do. The wiki reference may contain references to other sources. It takes time to track it down. If an article contains improper references, the solution is to remove them, not to delete the article; better, tag them, to give other editors time to improve them; I consider it a priority at this point to *add* reliable sources, not delete what is there. There are proper sources in this article which will look improper to someone not familiar with "controversy" articles, and please see WP:FORK. But I'm not shy about reverting edits by a blocked editor who isn't at all interested in editorial consensus, which is how sourcing decisions are actually made on Wikipedia, because of the complexity of the issues. If a legitimate editor, including QuirkyAndSuch, takes sources out, I'd treat it with far more respect. The whole point of blocking someone like Fredrick day -- and, QAS, the IP editor here is Fd, it's certain beyond a reasonable doubt from the pattern of edits currently taking place and the nature of the arguments being made -- is to avoid people having to go to the considerable trouble of edit warring with someone who has no responsibility at all. If I edit war, my account, with thousands of edits, is at risk. For him, nothing. He's already indef blocked. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge No opinion: the body of the article with instant-runoff voting and split Brown v. Smallwood into its own article:  the article is educational, but an argument can be made that it should be merged and redirected, and and generally well-written.  I think that its content constributes significantly to an understanding of the subject, and that the main article lacks sufficient explanation of both the pros and cons.  For example, one of the more severe criticisms of instant-runoff voting is its lack of monotonicity, and yet the main article mentions this only in passing; it is worth a full discussion in the main article.  That having been said, I see no need of a separate article generally on the pros and cons, and the article currently up for discussion is weasel-worded and would benefit from better sourcing.  When merging, I recommend that instead of keeping the "pro" and "con" organization, you setup one section for each voting system criterion and analyze instant-runoff voting in light of that criterion.  (An alternative proposal would be to merge this article with a new voting system comparison article that expands on the chart in the existing voting systems article by explaining the practical implications.)  I have gone over to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Voting Systems to recruit an expert to review the article and join this discussion.  Also asked at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Human rights because I thought that I might find neutral, unbiased editors there.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)  04:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At one point, I asked User:Scott Ritchie agreed to work on the main article, but I think he never found the time. However, note that User:Tbouricius is an expert, there has been some participation from User:MarkusSchulze, who is well-known in the voting methods world, and I'm relatively expert. I'm not sure what the user is wondering about, but the claim that IRV is not monotonic sometimes causes people to scratch their heads. Under IRV, you can cause a candidate to lose by voting for him or her . It's well known, and it may be sourced by now. Those writing the article, quite simply, may have failed to source it simply because it is *thoroughly* well known, it's not controversial. The *significance* of it is controversial. Because most see this as undesirable, it's listed with the con arguments, and it's an argument commonly made about IRV, with IRV advocates not denying that it's true, but claiming that it's rare, or not important, or that for some other reason IRV is still worth doing. And to explore this in sufficient detail so that it can be understood by someone not an expert at the outset requires a fair amount of text. There is still not enough. Doing it in the main article, in an NPOV fashion is far more difficult. What should be in the main article is a brief summary of this subarticle. Before that can be done with balance, it's important that this article be balanced. It is *not* easy, but this article was a big step in that direction. And, yes, it has flaws, quite a few, but we have ordinary editorial process to fix them.--Abd (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To you, an expert in the field, it is obvious, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopædia, likely to be visited by people with all different levels of educational background, so some clarification would be useful.
 * I am looking specifically for neutral experts, but I lack the familiarity with the subject to know which experts are neutral. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to trust me, but I tell you straightly. Experts in voting systems, particularly mathematicians and economists, almost unanimously concluded long ago that IRV wasn't a supportable method. There are few exceptions, such as, arguably, Tideman. And he appears to be biased in the opposite direction. It's hard to tell. Tideman, as far as I know, doesn't edit Wikipedia. Markus Schulze is a well-known voting systems expert, and he voted in the AfD. I'm what might be called an "amateur expert." Then there are the political scientists. Their education and special interests don't commonly go deeply into the details of voting systems, and there is probably more support among political scientists for IRV than among those who make a specialty of voting systems. FairVote makes a point that the American Political Science Association "uses IRV to elect their President." What they won't tell you, I had to fight to get it in the article, is that APSA has apparently never used it. It's in the Constitution, which may have been written when APSA was founded. "Preferential voting" was the rage then. 1910. But how do they actually elect their President. Deliberatively, using a Nominating Committee which apparently always makes a single recommendation which is then elected at the annual meeting. Political scientists, perhaps, are aware that single-ballot methods are unreliable. However, the Constitution provides that a president can be nominated by petition. And if there are three then the provision for STV would apply. In all the elections for which I could find public record, there was never a second candidate, much less a third. This is a really good example of the spin that has been promoted through the Wikipedia article, and some of it is still there. It's like pulling teeth to get it out.


 * Ahem. Neutral experts. On the pro-IRV side, there is Terrill Bouricius, who has worked on the controversies article. He's called a political scientist, perhaps because of his education, but more to the point, he's a politician who has served in public office (Vermont legislature) and who has authored, with Rob Richie, Executive Director of FairVote, a paper on IRV. I don't know any "neutral experts."


 * However, there are people who care more about truth than about their own opinions, and editors like this, particularly if knowledgeable, can be very helpful. True experts will rarely put their reputation on the line by distorting; they may push to some limit their POV, but they won't go beyond that.


 * Discussion of what to do with the articles should be in Talk for the articles. Trying to make editorial decisions in an AfD is pretty much a doomed effort. Delete can be reversed, but, of course, it makes it impossible for ordinary editors to work on the article without going to some special effort to get a copy of the deleted file. Merge and Redirect is not nearly so bad. For one thing, it can be reversed as an editorial decision, and it leaves the whole history available for re-use, even if what is done is to immediately blank and redirect. Keep would recognize that the topic is notable (there really is no doubt about that, in fact) and there is enough detailed material available for a separate article. The *consensus* of the editors actually involved (pro and con re IRV, or no position known) has been to keep the second article. Which is exactly what WP:FORK and WP:SUMMARY recommend. For those with no knowledge of the subject and no history working on the articles to second-guess the editors who have is to make for bad editorial policy. Most editors are unfamiliar with the special conditions of articles on controversies, because usually controversy, if notable, can be incorporated in the main article, but that's not the case here. Some editors have commented here that they haven't seen a reason for a subarticle, but they haven't tried to deal with the information in the main article.


 * However, if some editor thinks otherwise, I'd certainly welcome the editor's participation. One of the problems has been that RfCs have seen practically no attention from those not already involved. And just like the editors, by consensus, agreed upon starting the Controversies article, they could agree to Merge and Redirect. But I don't think they are ready for that. Basically, to bring the material back into the article is difficult because the article is already too long, so the detail necessary for NPOV is too much. Summaries can easily present a distorted picture, so we see edit warring over summaries like we don't see over detailed expositions. Once a detailed exposition is accepted by consensus, it becomes easier to find some broadly acceptable summary. There is now a basis for it. And, particularly if there is a detailed article, the summary is less crucial. Trying to create the summary first is quite backwards, and flies in the face of what is known about consensus process. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a notable topic and we can't expect to cover everything in a single article. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources don't nearly cover the claims made in the article, and this is inherent to the scope of the article because it's being used as a vehicle for opinions, not facts. It's plausible that there could be some encyclopedic content with this title -- such as about controversies that have occurred in the real world due to implementation of IRV. If this article were given an accurate title, it would be "Arguments about implementing IRV, especially in the United States". And then it would be deleted.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's more or less what it is, and deletion is by no means obvious, as Rspeer seems to think. Except that the U.S. part is not correct. Most debate in the world, currently, over IRV, is indeed taking place in the U.S. because there is a very active campaign conducted by FairVote. While there are some claims still in the article not covered by sources, that is being fixed; those claims weren't taken out before largely because there is consensus about them, though not always consensus as to how to present them. Opinions, notably expressed, are facts, which requires attribution, and for well-known arguments the attribution was not always made. But for someone not familiar with the topic, a well-known argument can even appear preposterous. The article is about "those controversies that have occurred in the real world" about the "implementation of IRV." There are debates taking place in publications, in the press, on the internet, and in courtrooms. The arguments presented in those debates is what the article is about. If there is original research in there -- and I think there is, at least to some degree -- it should be removed if it can't be verified. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. The IRV article provides the relevant context. The content of this article needs to be condensed to form the "controversy" section of that article. JFW | T@lk  09:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe The article is quite defective (sorry I haven't had time to continue working on it), but if it can be brought up to snuff, on balance I think it should exist. It definitely cannot be merged into the main article, as it is ten-times too long to be merged into that article and it would be nearly impossible to settle on what pieces should survive, resuming an edit war. My biggest complaint is that this article gives way too much space to arguments that are outside the discussion actually being conducted on the ground, whcih is contrasting IRV with current voting methods (plurality and two-round runoffs). Some comaprison with other theoretical voting methods (such as Condorcet, Borda and Approval) should be in the article, but these are minor sidelines compared to the real-world controversy over IRV, and should be a minor portion of this article. Some editors want to use this article to show why their favorite theoretical voting method is better than IRV. That sort of "debate" is more suited to an article comparing all voting methods, rather than an article about IRV.Tbouricius (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Terrill. For the benefit of others, User:Tbouricius is a published author on the topic and former Vermont legislator, who is associated with FairVote and, quite fairly, represents a pro-IRV position. There has been, so far, no edit warring over the controversies article, and it was designed to make coming to consensus much easier than in the main article, with the hope that what was most notable from it would be taken back into the main article. As to comparison with other systems, there are articles, I think, where systems are compared overall. However, the current political debate in the U.S., and to some extent elsewhere, is not IRV vs. all other systems, but IRV vs. the status quo, which is usually top-two runoff. (Not plurality). Where other systems become relevant is when possible reforms are being considered. For a simple example, it is relative expensive to implement IRV. There are other possible reforms which are much less expensive, such as Approval voting (no cost at all, beyond possibly some education) and Bucklin voting, and which, some would claim, also solve the problems IRV purportedly solves, and some claim that the alternatives solve them better. To discuss the expense issue (and there are both pro and con arguments involving expense), without consideration of alternatives, is largely meaningless. It's not like we are going to stop holding elections! --Abd (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep needs work, however it is a worthy topic for content Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I would like to remind those thinking about merging that the parent article instant-runoff voting already contains the major praise and criticism about instant-runoff voting, which is why I feel a merge would not be needed. Please consider reading both articles before deciding whether to keep, delete, or merge. Thank you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have requested an outside opinion from a non-Wikipedian who I think is an expert in the subject.  69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)