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. Uncle G makes a strong argument that the subject is notable. I also hope Uncle G uses his clearly very good library to improve the article.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting correctly[edit]

Voting correctly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

After a brief search, I'm not confident this is a notable concept in the sense that multiple reliable sources have substantially covered this as a phenomenon. The main article that it refers to is very interesting, even credible. But unless it picks up greater commentary, it remains closer to something WP:MADEUP than something we can write a real article about. Vcessayist (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how relevant this page is but I suppose we could redirect this to Low information voter. Looking for constructive community feedback (not just votes). Vcessayist (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really just the obvious dictionary definition of two words, so against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Not too different from "driving correctly", "adding correctly", "dialing a phone number correctly", etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Might merit a mention on a page on psephology, voting or similar (and/or a redirect), but hard to see it meriting its own article: there's no shortage of uses of the term, but is it really a distinct concept or just the product of its terms? --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator, Wikipedia is not about something you thought up one day --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Low information voter per Vcessayist and WP:CHEAP, and then protect the page. It will not harm the Project to have a redirect, but it will be harmful to have what looks like it could be a voting guide for a Moron in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, as above -silly Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and consider salting per Bearian. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The answer to Colapeninsula's question is "Yes.". It is a distinct concept that has been discussed in political science literature (such as Boudreau & Lupia 2011, p. 179) for over a decade now. This is a stub that barely even explains the concept — as can be seen by the several people above who, not knowing or having researched the subject themselves (or even having read the citation in the article), make such wholesale errors as Sue Rangell erroneously thinking that it was made up by the article's creator and Steve Dufour erroneously thinking that it's a combination of two words.

  In fact, it was made up in 1997 by Richard R. Lau, who is now Professor of political science at Rutgers University, and David P. Redlawsk, who was a professor of political science at Iowa and who now is also at Rutgers. It was published (Lau & Redlawsk 1997) in The American Political Science Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal, and has been discussed in the literature many times in the years since. A full article would, for example, include (University of Arizona) ethics professor Jason F. Brennan's taking Lau's and Redlawsk's definition to task on ethical grounds (Brennan 2012, pp. 166–167) or the analysis by (University of Amsterdam) politics professor Catherine E. de Vries's and (University of Twente) political science professor Martin Rosema's application of Lau's and Redlawsk's experimental model to real election data from the European Union (de Vries & Rosema 2011), amongst other things. I don't know what Vcessayist's search was, but my search turned up university press book after university press book referencing and discussing Lau's and Redlawsk's notion. I didn't even need to check the academic journals at all.

  Let's not delete an article on a valid subject in political science because Wikipedia editors didn't do their research and reading at AFD.

  • Lau, Richard R.; Redlawsk, David P. (September 1997). "Voting Correctly". The American Political Science Review. 91 (3): 585–598. doi:10.2307/2952076. JSTOR 2952076.
  • Brennan, Jason F. (2012). "How Well do Voters Behave?". The Ethics of Voting. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691154442.
  • de Vries, Catherine E.; Rosema, Martin (2011). "Assessing the Quality of European Democracy: Are Voters Voting Correctly?". In Rosema, Martin; Denters, Bas; Aarts, Kees (eds.). How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies : Essays in Honour of Jacques Thomassen. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789085550365.
  • Boudreau, Cheryl; Lupia, Arthur (2011). "Political Knowledge". In Druckman, James N.; Green, Donald P.; Kuklinski, James H.; et al. (eds.). Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521192125.
• Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2012 (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.