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 Bullet voting. There is clear consensus that this shouldn't be a standalone. Many arguments to keep point to the existence of sources but express openness to a merger. There is less clear consensus as to the target; the one I chose is the only one that received substantial support, but this can be revisited via talk page discussion if needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burr dilemma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable enough. The page seems to have only one or two citations to a pair of closely-related papers by the same author, both mostly speculative. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with a related article. --Erel Segal (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a brief mention could be added to bullet voting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because the citations in the article aren't the only ones that exist. Though, I wouldn't be against merging it with a related article if a sufficiently related one can be found. Loki (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [1], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic_voting#Influence_of_voting_method might work as a merge target, if merged. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure WP:SYNTH, is simply WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I created this article since it is related to several different pages, and I thought it is more convenient to have a single page linked from all these pages, than to include it in each page. If it cannot stand on its own, then I support, as a second-best option, to Merge it as a subsection into one of the pages that links to it, e.g. Approval voting or Bullet voting or 1800 United States presidential election or Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable thought experiment proposed by a single author and not really covered by anyone else. A merge or redirect doesn't really seem possible given that there are multiple pages with a connection to this topic and all have a tenuous connection at best. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Bullet voting: very selectively. There's not enough for a standalone article, but a brief mention in the target will cover the encyclopedic content and be useful for those searching for the term. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Bullet voting seems to make most sense here. We basically have just Nagel as the authority (both in the cited sources and what is on the Web) so it's enough for a short section in the target article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very basic but informed introduction to undervoting. I am an election attorney from PA. 38.107.148.75 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2024 (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.