Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Range 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 keep. John254 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range voting

Non-notable voting system not actually used by any jurisdictions; supported primarily by the Center for Range Voting, made up of three rather prolific writers who have not been able to get their system adopted by the public and are using Wikipedia to promote it. StrengthOfNations (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree its unused for political elections, but its a valid method of voting, used as ratings for olympic judges and numerous competitions - no more or less valuable than Borda voting which also has a theorical following. I'm not judging the article content which may need work. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May not get many news hits, but has some heat in SCHOLAR.GOOGLE.COM; researchers who work on voting seem to find it notable. --- tqbf 04:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, but those third party sources need to be in the article, as right now the only references are from the rangevoting.org site (except for one of them). - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Voting methods are not only used for political elections. Range Voting has long been in actual use in many places, under various names, as mentioned in the article. '"Average Ratings" voting' returned over 10 million Google hits. "Cardinal Ratings", the older name for the method in election methods and decision theory circles, returns 2200 hits (many actually have to do with voting methods!). For a news source, see [1]. The Range voting article gives two examples of web usage of cardinal ratings: Internet Movie Database and Kuro5hin; I've certainly seen others. There is a U.S. patent that refers to cardinal ratings.[2]. "Range voting" returns 22,400 hits. Among them, an internet usage of Range Voting in a political poll[3], FairVote, which devotes a fair amount of space to debunking this method;[4][5] we wonder why they would bother if it was not notable, plus FairVote hosts a newspaper article that describes Range Voting;[6] it might be of interest that Representative John Kefalas later went ahead and set up a Voters Choice Task Force and both Rob Richie of FairVote and Warren Smith of the Center for Range Voting have given presentations in person to it.[7] And here is the killer reference, it pretty much seals the matter: Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice, Nicolaus Tideman[8] devotes two pages specifically to Range Voting. Now, I might ask why a newly registered user is proposing AfD for a long-standing article, behavior that I have seen before. But I won't. Definitely, the Range voting article needs work, it is poorly sourced, mostly from the Center for Range Voting, an advocacy organization, probably for the same reason that the IRV article was largely sourced from FairVote, and the same reason that newspapers rely on press releases: it's easy. And unsatisfactory. But notability is not a problem for Range Voting. --Abd (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the fact that it ranks best in terms of bayesian regret is notability enough. Mostly academic and not used in any political elections, sure, but notable in relation to decision theory.maxsch (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided If kept it should only be with major re-editing. Because it has such a tiny cadre of people interested in it (mainly promoters), it appears to have been written and edited almost exclusively by its promoters. Even the supposed criticisms are straw men, rather than the actual criticisms, apparently inserted to provde the illusion of neutrality. Perhaps tha article should simply be tagged as potentially POV and incomplete rather than deleted. Tbouricius (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should be tagged, there is no doubt about that, and it has been done. The claim of only a "tiny cadre of people," however, if true, would make it non-notable. It's not true, which can be easily seen if this editor would do a little searching or even just look at the citations above.... I'm not aware of any active proposals to use full Range voting in public elections at this time; Range Voting advocates, like others, are advocating, for the near term, Approval voting, as it is the simplest Range method, with essentially no implementation cost. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator erronously assumed that voting systems need to be used in elections to be notable. The Olympic connection alone is enough to establish it is in fact used and noteworthy. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tqbf. I don't see the lack of deployment as a problem, if there is sufficient academic interest. And I see no evidence that the article here was intended primarily as a promotional platform, especially as one of the people who has written on this system (Ron Rivest) is a Turing award winner with no need to resort to Wikipedia to get his ideas out. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.