Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Score Runoff 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 merge to Range voting. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Score Runoff Voting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search did find some hits in reliable sources, but at best these were passing mentions or sites that promote the method. The only independent significant coverage I could find appears to be from a site that advocates electoral reform, so I'm not sure how independent or reliable that source is. It's possible this could be merged to either Ranked voting system or Instant-runoff voting, but as it stands, it seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best for this to have its own article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you categorize the Center for Election Science VSE article and the Sightline article as either "passing mentions or sites that promote the method"? CES is a longstanding reference source for a number of voting-related articles on Wikipedia. CES has done no promotion of the Score Runoff Voting method, rather a researcher there statistically analyzed many voting methods and found Score Runoff Voting to perform best on the measures of the simulation amongst all the voting methods analyzed. Likewise, the reference Sightline article is hardly a "passing mention" - that article fully describes the function of the method such that no original research is needed to extract the content and discusses strategic voting implications under the system. That's three independent sources that meet GNG criteria. Keep. Nardopolo (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A trivial variation of range voting with no significant independent reliably-published sourcing (all we have is web sites of dubious significance and reliability), does not pass WP:GNG. The sightline piece in particular is a pamphlet from a partisan group, not a scholarly publication, mentions a different variation (with reweighting), and does so only trivially as a short bullet in a long bulleted list of possibilities. I see no reason to change my WP:TOOSOON opinion from last time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response:. David, you might want to take a closer look. The three independent sources are IVN (~500,000 subscribers on social media), the Center for Election Science, creators of the VSE metric and significant contributors to voting science, and Sightline. Sightline is a research think tank that's been around for more than two decades -- whether or not their articles are "scholarly" may be a matter of debate (the author of that paper has like 10 pages of links to research writings on the site), but it doesn't need to be a "scholarly publication" to meet GNG. And your cursory examination of that piece didn't manage to find the actual definition and description of Score Runoff Voting, nor its strategic implications. While you assert SRV is a "trivial variation" of range voting, it has significant performance differences, as evidenced by the CES VSE study. How many more independent sources are needed beyond three before you'll let go of the WP:TOOSOON claim? Nardopolo (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google scholar search for "score runoff voting" returned "Your search - "Score Runoff Voting" - did not match any articles". More than zero would be a start. For this sort of subject I would like to see actual scholarship, not just web page and think tank advocacy. For why think tank product cannot be considered reliable, see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive950#massive deletions — too main think tanks say what they are paid to say rather than neutrally seeking the truth. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like we both agree that this topic deserves more scholarly research, however, you are incorrect in equating "scolarly sources" with "independent sources". This reform comes from public interest campaigns and active reform, rather than an ivory tower approach. The ivory tower is not required for WP:GNG, and your example about think tanks hardly establishes the notion that all think tanks are unreliable independent sources, rather that a paid editor was spamming links to a particular set of partisan viewpoints. You have also not adjusted or addressed your misstatements above.Nardopolo (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither IVN (the Independent Voter Network) nor the Sightline Institute are notable enough for their own pages on Wikipedia, so that goes against their notability. Plus the Sightline report is a general memo on voting systems reform, contains a relatively brief (two paragraphs) mention, and opens with "This memo is an articulation of Sightline’s internal strategy for voting systems reform. It is not a thoroughly vetted and reviewed report or article like most of our publications." I agree it is WP:TOOSOON; a brief description under Instant-runoff voting#Similar methods might be appropriate. It also already has a brief mention under Range voting#Advocacy, imho that's sufficient. Jsilter (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DavidEppstein. Should be briefly covered at Range voting; no need for a separate article. Also concerned by the nature of the account that created (and recreated) this article. Number 57 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. It has a passing mention at the range voting page already, which seems appropriate given its few passing mentions and zero academic coverage. A paragraph under Instant-runoff voting#Similar methods might also be appropriate.Jsilter (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Range voting — whether or not it's notable as its own topic, I think it's such a short article on such a similar topic to range voting that it would be better off as a section in that article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:42, 12 April 2017 (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.