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 delete. east.718 at 23:04, March 1, 2008

Delegable proxy[edit]

Delegable proxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Judging by the events of Wikipedia:Delegable proxy and the fact that Google has only 2,000 results, this appears to be a neologism, and person that started the article is apparently trying to make it popular. This topic is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Superm401 - Talk 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Abd (initial creator of article), User:Ron Duvall (an editor of it), User:Sarsaparilla (another editor), and User:Absidy. From what I understand, these four accounts are at most two people. User:Abd explicitly says he is an inventor of delegable proxy, which is a strong indication of vanity and original research. Superm401 - Talk 16:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, and User:Absidy are all the same person. (He has explicitly stated the link between the accounts). Mangojuice^talk 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm just wondering if User:Abd is the same as well. A CheckUser may be in order, but that's a separate issue. Superm401 - Talk 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron Duvall is in progress. Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd came back  Unrelated. It appears to be a different user, or at least a different computer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Johochman. Usually we see checkuser when there is abusive editing, or other activity prohibited for multiple accounts to engage in, or suspicion of block evasion. It is not normally used to troll for socks unless there is some necessity, and, since this has come up before, it might be necessary to go through RFC. I don't mind being checkusered at all, though. Frankly, I'm glad to see unreasonable suspicion dispelled. I do wonder, though, at all the wikidrama here. Obviously some deep nerve is being touched. Absidy/Duvall/Sarsaparilla (openly and clearly the same user, a serial accountant, literally) is a bit of a trickster, the class clown; but he's not actually disruptive (unless a weird sense of humor is disruptive; I say "weird" though, in fact, I find it funny, I was practically rolling on the floor last night when I saw his proxy solicitations. (Is that a violation of policy? Maybe it should be; but it isn't, yet.) However, he's attracting what I consider disruption (i.e., attempts to shut down community discussion trying to work on file formats and procedures through useless argument), to be sure, he's kind of a honey trap for those who love wikidrama. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. You're crazy, mon. Dozens of people have come up with delegable proxy independently, although it has many names (e.g. liquid democracy). It even showed up on Jimbo's talk page. Absidy (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually "liquid democracy" and "delegable proxy" are different, and Jimbo used neither term. Both, taken together, they would have a grand total of 3,750 Google hits. It is a clear neologism. But, thanks for attacking my sanity. That almost persuades me, but not quite. Superm401 - Talk 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Experts in the field (such as they are, this is a very new field) consider them variations on the same theme. The basic concept is that each member of an organization may name a "proxy," "representative," "advisor," the key feature being that this is voluntary, not required, and is a free choice. This, by itself is proxy democracy; delegable proxy arises when a representative of a representative is consider to represent all the "clients," direct and indirect. See the bank example below; they don't use the term "delegable proxy," but the "representation" is transitive. Demoex didn't use the term "proxy" but in the original implementation by Mikael Nordfors (I think it's described in a published article, by the way), the "advisor" designation was delegable, and it was only abandoned because they thought of it as a software thing, the software was buggy, and they were offered new software free. Apparently it worked, according to reports from the people involved. The name of an article may be a neologism, but we have an article here, stubbornly called Instant-runoff voting in spite of the fact that (1) there is no occurrence of the name prior to 1996, (2) the method has other names of greater currency world-wide and historically in the U.S., and (3) IRV is a political invention by a U.S. political organization FairVote, and the very name promotes a POV. I'm not arguing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; rather, that the name of an article is entirely different from the notability of the topic. It is a normal editorial issue. If the topic is notable, and if reliable sources exist, the name would not be grounds for AfD, it would be grounds for, perhaps, merge, perhaps with Delegated voting, which is the general European name for Delegable Proxy.--Abd (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You admit is a "very new field", and given the number of Google hits, I think you may even be understating it. Wikipedia does not cover neologisms. When/if it develops into a more "popular" field/policy, an article can be created under the dominant term. Superm401 - Talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't !vote on this one, because, as one of the many inventors of this concept, and, in particular, as the probable coiner of the term "delegable proxy," taken up by others such as James Armytage-Green, though it is merely descriptive: I have a Conflict of Interest. One might note that my participation in this article, beyond creating the stub initially, as been non-existent, except in Talk. I did, indeed, start the article in 2005, when I was basically clueless, under the title Liquid democracy, which, at the time, was certainly a more notable term. However, if you look at the contributions, you will see that many others expanded the article extensively. I'll comment more, perhaps, bringing in some examples that might show notability -- if I can find them --, but I'm really not attached to this article remaining here, it's up to the community to decide. For the moment, see Common Good Bank. This is a serious bank project (lots of local support) that happens to have been started without my knowledge, a few miles from my home. I saw the link someone added to the article; I called them, and they had raised, when I called, I was told, (six months ago?) $50,000 of the $100,000 they need as seed money to start the bank, scheduled to open in 2009 at this point, and they have, I think, hired staff already. They were aware of my work and that of others such as Armytage-Green. This is happening, whether Wikipedia has an article on it or not.--Abd (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well once it has 'happened' and there is a lot of coverage in reliable sources, there will be no objection to an article I'm sure. But while it is still 'happening' with little coverage in reliable sources, well then I'd have to say no... Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sources are found. I expected that beyond all the WP:PRX hubbub, the idea behind it was a well-established idea academically. But when I started looking into it, I note that the article here cites many reliable sources in describing related concepts (like democracy or proxy voting) but has no reliable sources about its use, its history, or the terminology. Similarly, most arguments about its merits and the shortcomings of other systems are not coming from reliable sources. Abd Lomax's post on a mailing list is cited, a personal website (Ant's eye view) is cited, the "election methods interest group" (a Yahoo! group) is cited, but no publications. As such, this whole thing looks like WP:OR to me. But I'm not sure -- is it just that these are shortcomings in the article, or is there really a WP:NEO and WP:N kind of problem here. I would think this should be kept, if some clearly reliable sources are presented that establish that this is a well-recognized idea and goes by the name "delegable proxy". But without that I think we should delete per WP:N and WP:NEO. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a class of editors here who create article cores which don't meet WP:RS with the sources provided, and who simply write what they know; this often includes experts in the field, or at least knowledgeable students or amateurs. Then other editors come along and cut back what can't be reliably sourced (or, sometimes, attributed as notable opinions). Clearly the editor who worked furiously on this article recently is in this class. It's part of the mix which makes Wikipedia function. If he were to edit war over unsourced material, it would be offensive and, indeed, could be the basis for a block. I saw what was being put into the article and wondered about it myself, i.e., "Is he going to get away with this?" However, this is a very long-term Wikipedian, if all the beads are strung together, and it seems he knows what he is doing. He is definitely WP:BOLD; remember all the advice we give to newcomers, be bold, you can't break Wikipedia, if you think it will improve the encyclopedia, do it, etc., etc. If the article is POV or unsourced, fix it. If it isn't notable, in your opinion, AfD it, as has happened. If it is notable but beyond what can be verifiably put in, prune it. But don't mix the two issues, they are truly independent. As to the name, look at Talk for the article. There was discussion there of what to name the "technology." The article name had been Liquid Democracy, but that name has not been widely used for discussion in depth. Delegable Proxy is the name most widely used among those interested in election methods, including some academics, and it is a straight, literal naming, accurately descriptive; to my knowledge there is no other name that describes the essential "invention" involved as efficiently. I've called it other names myself, such as "fractal democracy." But none of the other names convey it the idea in a nutshell.

Now, as to the Election Methods Interest Group. There is a yahoogroup that EMIG uses for communication, but EMIG itself is a Free Association, and, as such, is not controlled by any individual or "moderator," nor is it dependent upon any single communication node. EMIG members can -- and do -- directly communicate with each other. Right now, as a nascent organization, EMIG is only notable as being a delegable proxy organization; it was designed as such to attract expert participation, which has worked to a degree. Again, whether or not any of this belongs in the article is a matter about which I'm COI, and I'm doubly COI here: I founded EMIG and do moderate (though not exclusively) the Yahoogroup.--Abd (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Google Scholar and Google Books for this topic, and found very few hits along any of these lines. I may be wrong but I'm getting the idea that this whole idea is a proposal of yours that has been made informally and never been written about in a formal way. If I'm wrong, I think the article should be kept. If I'm right, though, it's WP:OR to have an article here before anything has been written reliably on this subject. Abd - you should know - is this the subject of any reliable sources? Peer-reviewed papers? Books? Are there other names we should look for that people have used in the past? Mangojuice^talk 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if an article needs better sources, it can be fixed. If kept, the article needs to be cleaned up, and stubified. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be an inappropriate content fork of proxy voting. This is a novel variation of proxy voting, but its merits are completely unexamined and thus Mangojuice's comment above that this is original research are correct. If this has been the direct subject of real peer reviewed papers or non-self published books, I'm of course willing to reconsider, but that doesn't appear to be the case. It's certainly not acceptable for an article to cite its own talk page as a source, so agree with Jossi that if kept stubbing back to only the most reliable material will be necessary. Delegable proxy is an intriguing enough proposal, but until it catches on, we shouldn't be promoting novel theories with the Wiki. --JayHenry (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worried about that reference to the Talk page myself! That was BOLD! Now, should I have reverted it out? I was tempted, but, remember, I'm COI for this article. Contrary to what is implied above, I had nothing to do with editing this article, except for comments in Talk and the original creation as Liquid democracy in 2005. See my earliest contributions. Had I known policy then, I'd have not done that, but, as you can see, I was a raw newbie, it took me some years to figure out how to sign Talk page comments. I thought Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, and I still think so. How long an article and what is in it is a different matter. I'll say this much: I found the article useful, as put together by Sarsaparilla/Duvall, I learned a lot from it and from the references (beyond my own comments in Talk! -- shaking head in wonder). Has anyone looked at that bank? Now, is there a local newspaper article on this? I've never thought to look. There is a lot of ... well, "steaming pile of crap" comes unbidden to my mind ... appearing about this whole affair, some very misleading comments being made by admins here and there, and it will all come out in the wash, I'm told. Sarsaparilla/Duvall/Absidy (et al) has done some fairly spectacular things. Most of you probably won't understand, but there are some people who seed ideas in ways that make them unforgettable. I'm not sure he's even aware of it, but he is one of these. Wikipedia will be poorer without him. He is not the energy behind the wikidrama here, he is a catalyst, or a lightning rod being blamed for lightning. Indef blocked, with a warning and no violation beyond that and a request to admins to not unblock? My, my, my. This is going to be interesting; not what I'd have chosen at all. I just wanted some nice quiet proxy files and tables. And, guess what? We have the proxy files and tables, more than one design, and all the code, and ... well, watch. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) <-- see, I've actually learned something here![reply]

Abd, I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to politely respond, but my argument for deletion isn't based off the things you touched upon in your comment. I don't know who Sarsaparilla/Duvall/Absidy is, nor do I think it's germane to this page here. I apologize if you got caught up in drama that's not of your making. But that's not why I'm commenting. The problem I have is that there don't appear to be reliable sources about this topic and thus the page is original research. --JayHenry (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The author(s) which are possibly all the same person have been regularly engaging in contentious editing. This article is a fork of:
• Proxy voting
• Vote trading
• Representational faithfulness

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge Zenwhat to actually read what has been written above, including the reference to checkuser. Checkuser revealed the obvious, Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Absidy is a serial accountant (literally). Which is legal here, unless there is double voting. (Holding a conversation between socks would be prohibited, but he didn't do that; rather, for whatever reason, he dropped one account and started another, but made no effort to conceal the connections, which were, uh, blatant. Checkuser also showed what was obvious: I'm not that user. As to contentious editing, them's fighting words around here! What contentious editing? I just went through an RfA, one of Sarsaparilla's stunts, and contentious editing was hardly an issue (I've been involved with real sock puppets, mostly James Salsman and, yes, they have had lots of complaints about me. Pot kettle black is enough said at this point as to the contentious editing charge. Now, what does the identity of authors and their alleged editing style have to do with article notability and verifiability? As to forks, I don't agree, this is a different topic having nothing to do with Vote trading, something to do with proxy voting -- it is a form of it --, and I have no clue about Representational faithfulness, I haven't looked at that article. Is it notable? In any case, if it's a fork, then merge might be appropriate....--Abd (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm extensively commenting here because my identity, edit history, and COI status have been made an issue in some misleading ways, plus I'm probably the world's best-known advocate and expert on the topic, though James Armytage-Green gets more citations (I think he'd agree about me, though). This means that (1) I can advise and (2) I can't edit in any contentious way about this, not in article space, anyway, nor can I vote in this AfD. But I can comment. So I am. Please note, I'm not arguing for keep or delete, I'm merely attempting to increase the level of information about the topic and its notability and surrounding issues here. I meant what I said: it is up to the community to decide if this article should be here.--Abd (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the worlds foremost expert on this issue, then it should not be difficult for you to identify where it can be found in reliable sources. If these can't be produced, then there is no argument to contradict labeling this article as covering a non-notable subject. That isn't to say the subject is without merit, it may be. But Wikipedia is for describing, not for promoting. Avruch ^T 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my comment immediately above. Avruch ^T 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research, because (A) none of the sources, mostly email posts and wiki pages, meet the reliable source criteria, and (B) primary author claims to be inventor, indicating vanity OR. SBPrakash (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to neutral: some of the sources, such as the Aardvark Daily may be borderline-reliable. SBPrakash (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note: the Aardvark Daily source does talk about proxies, and does talk about an individual retracting the proxy authority by voting on their own. However, it doesn't talk at all about delegable proxies - proxies designating their own proxies, and so on, or any of this stuff about proxy chains or proxy loops. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I already knew that many !voters in AfDs don't read the evidence presented; so I'm not surprised at the error. I created, almost three years ago, a stub, Liquid democracy which I did not invent. I am one of possibly dozens of independent inventors of Delegable Proxy, but I have not edited the article since that stub. So "vanity" is preposterous. Had it been "vanity," I'd have named the article Delegable proxy" not Liquid democracy, a name which I never liked much.

As to sources, perhaps I'll be able to come back with something, there are theoretical possibilities, but the academics involved in this have not, so far, published, to my knowledge, beyond a paper on Demoex, which, I believe, is in the sources for the article. And I might be able to find a newspaper account for the bank cited above.... we'll see. I may be the worlds foremost expert on certain aspects of this, but I'm also a very small part of the very large community of people (probably hundreds or more) working on this and similar ideas, and I don't know but a small part of what they have done, quite a bit of it is not in English, I think. I don't personally care one way or the other if this article is deleted, this is not, for me, a political cause and I have no personal need to reach large numbers of people. I understand WP:RS and WP:V fairly well, and was not surprised to see this AfD. But ... Liquid democracy. Delegated voting. I did not invent those names. I did not invent Demoex, the Swedish political party. I have no idea what exists, for example, in the Swedish press on Demoex. Go to the Election Methods mailing list and ask about delegable proxy. They will know immediately what you are talking about. (I know you can't use that as a source, though, in fact, this would be closer to how traditional encyclopedias worked, by asking experts). One of the best known general election experts, a non-academic but widely respected, Mike Ossipoff, once wrote. I think it was on the EM list, that the best election method was, of course, delegable proxy, but it wasn't practical. Why? Well, because people won't try it. He is, of course, right, until something else happens. (He was thinking of political application for public elections, something I'm not even proposing, because it isn't necessary.)--Abd (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection (not a !vote). I was looking at old contributors to the article, and I didn't see notices for this AfD. Why not?--Abd (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  User-page notification is a courtesy, but not a requirement for listing an AfD. You can notify people who you think should be notified with ((subst:adw|Delegable proxy)) ~~~~ on their talk page. SBPrakash (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Users are supposed to watchlist articles they care about. Darkspots (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to say. I'm 63 years old. I was a user here for two years before I figured out how to use the watchlist. On other wikis, watching something would send me an email when it was edited, and I kept expecting that to happen. Wikipedia is not set up that way; I'm not here debating the wisdom of that, but ... users, in addition, may not log in frequently. However, no rush. If source sufficient for the core policy, WP:V does not show up, as judged by this segment of the community, and something shows up, we could go to Deletion Review at that time. But Deletion is not the appropriate remedy here, in my opinion. I'll add another comment in place to explain what I think is proper, and, please note while I cannot vote, AfDs, in theory, are about cogency of arguments, not votes, and a controlling argument presented by a COI editor should be sufficient to balance out all "!votes." Is this really true? Well, I've seen it happen, but, as might be expected, it is not common. Suppose that administrators, on average, hold the same opinion as other knowledgeable editors, so, where something is ambiguous, and neglecting participation bias, we can expect the decision of an administrator to be about the average, regardless of actual argument, when something new or marginal is involved. I've elsewhere written that !voting in AfDs, if it happens at all, should be in a separate section (with no argument in it), and that arguments should be categorized and examined in detail by the participating editors, and either accepted or rejected *after evidence has been collected*, with, in the end, an administrator signing off on the specific arguments justifying the decision. Otherwise, when there is any contention (even one reasonable dissent from the majority), we might as well close AfDs by lot weighted by the votes (i.e, the conclusions of editors, presumably after reviewing the evidence, and voting in an AfD without reviewing the evidence is ... what? It certainly is nothing other than an attempt to vote, based on prejudice). Which, absolutely, I don't recommend. Where it is allowed, I'll send emails to the "absent" users. Is that canvassing? Definitely, not. --Abd (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more problem. The editor who did most of the work on the article is not able to respond here, because he has been blocked (quite precipitously, and quite contrary to policy, in my opinion, we'll see what the community thinks through DR process). I've stated that I'm the foremost expert on "delegable proxy," but he, on the topic of current publication on it, as well as old references to similar ideas, is far more knowledgeable than I, he did an amazing amount of research compiling the article. Some of what he found has been challenged here. I don't know enough about those sources to challenge in return. His block could possibly be prejudicing this proceeding.

Not such a nice guy, though, is he? [1] Darkspots (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify you, the creator, and you obviously found out, so I don't see the problem. Superm401 - Talk 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Proxy voting. *** Crotalus *** 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of usage of the term or concept, redirection seems the appropriate remedy for insufficient notability to me. It leaves the article and history in place for future use, if found appropriate, and, in fact, if someone had simply done it, as an ordinary editorial decision (blank and redirect? or just redirect?), we'd have avoided this wikidrama almost entirely. Certainly I would not have contested it -- remember, I'm COI -- and I've seen enough of the edit history of Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Abisdiy to know that he is not an edit warrior, I doubt that he would have made a big fuss either. Where a term -- even a neologism -- has sufficient independent currency, the redirect should be present in any case, and that has been shown here. However, where to redirect is not completely clear. Nevertheless, that, too, is an ordinary editorial decision, and can be changed as an ordinary decision. Again, the less wikidrama the better.--Abd (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "delegable proxy -wikipedia", 1590 ghits. "liquid democracy -wikipedia" 979 ghits. "delegated voting -wikipedia, 3350 ghits. Nordfors' original delegated vote was "delegable proxy," he agrees, but I'm not sure about the World Parliament Experiment method which is attributed to him.[2].--Abd (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment one problem is that the technique is being described under many different names. Delegated voting, above, is common in Europe. The bank I cited above, Common Good Bank, describes it as "Hands-on Democracy," but the picture makes it totally clear: this is delegable proxy. All those other citations, some of which, for all we know, might be in RS (is a bank prospectus RS?), would not show up in searches. Yes, I know, blah, blah, blah.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirect to proxy voting without merge—create a neutral, well-referenced section in that article if it is possible to find reliable, high-quality sources. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote novel experiments in democracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The extreme lack of independant reliable sources to establish that this is more than a neologism is a serious concern. If this concept starts to be discussed by reliable sources, then it can be recreated (under whatever name)... but until that time it should go. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This may be important. Following up on an idea expressed here last night, I searched for "common good bank". Many, many independent sources of information about this project, which is, in fact, planned to use delegable proxy, see the references above. They don't call it that name on their web site, which I also mentioned above, but the founder said to me, when I called him, something like, "Yes, this is delegable proxy, we are aware of your work, we just didn't put the term in the explanation, preferring to have a diagram instead." My guess is that this diagram would be released by them for an article here. There is a reference to delegable proxy in the Wikipedia article [[3]], but, again, not by a specific name; instead it has "Member depositors will use a system of direct democracy, based on the wisdom of crowds, to [advise the bank]." This is not only delegable proxy, if you look at the web site of the bank, cited above, it is FA/DP, the very specific form that is my own true specialty. (FA stands for Free Association, see Abd). Now, looking through the Google hits, I find [4]. Not only is there the exact description from the Common Good bank site, there is now (my bold): The bank's participatory democracy melds elements of direct voting, direct representation by revocable proxy, paired instant runoff, range voting, approval voting, internet voting, and town meeting style discussions. Members each get one vote, which they can cast themselves or assign to a representative who casts a proxy vote. "A popular and trusted Representative may vote on behalf of many constituents," states the Bank's website. Members can change their votes for a week after they are cast, and can change their representative anytime." The bank site makes it clear that these are automatically delegable proxies. There is a published article in a print journal on the Common Good Bank, but it doesn't mention the advisory structure.[5]. It's up to you, folks.--Abd (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles do look like reliable sources to me. However, as you mention, the second one doesn't get into the voting system at all, and the first doesn't talk about the delegation (which in my understanding is what really sets delegable proxy apart from other ideas), although it's clear from the Common Good Bank's site that they really are using this system. My take on this is that this is not coverage of this voting system. It would be perfectly reasonable material to include if there are other reliable sources that can establish notability, though. Also, these could justify an article on the Common Good Bank itself, which is really quite interesting. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, no Common Good Bank actually yet exists. They predict that the first will open in 2009—it may be prudent to wait until then before we start getting too enthusiastic about reporting on them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The organization exists, it has collected the bulk of the seed money needed, and it has very substantial local support. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't found local newspaper comment on it, good chance it isn't searchable or something else is wrong. It's supported by well-known local businesses and people. If I had time, I'd look more. (The fact that the founders of this bank project, who did not know me personally or know that I only live a few miles away, when I called them, were familiar with "delegable proxy" and that this is what they were proposing, convinces me that this is actually notable, but that isn't evidence here, it's background as to why I'd even bother to explain what I've been explaining and discussing.--Abd (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I wish the founders of the Common Good Bank the best of luck, it should be noted that their first branch is intended to open in the bustling metropolis of Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts (population 1951). I don't know what 'substantial local support' would be, but even if it's everyone in town it's still pretty small potatoes. It's also apparent that their opening date has been pushed back at least once; this essay by one of the founders was written in July 2006 and sets the opening date in October 2007. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shelburne Falls is somewhat of a center for northwestern Massachusetts, there are many surrounding towns contiguous with it, so the population of the town itself is misleading. By local support, I was talking about known leaders in this entire area of western Massachusetts. I've only lived here for about seven years, and I recognized many of the names. Again, I am not claiming that the topic meets, yet, notability guidelines. But neither is this just some vanity of mine, this is real, and it's really happening, in quite a few different independent places. Because these ideas came from outside academia, there has been very little academic publication. There is some effort being made to find work in Swedish; we have only one translation of a paper written on that project, and Demoex only used DP for a short time because of software problems. As an active political party, though, with political victories, it would seem that there would be some newspaper comment. But we haven't found it yet, I don't know if Absidy has had response from Mikael Nordfors, who might know.--Abd (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; poorly sourced content fork. - Vary | Talk 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't really care about the article itself, but a claim I saw above said "It is a clear neologism" based on the fact that it had few google hits. Google is a recent phenomenon, the web almost as recent. The only conclusion one could draw, and a weak one at that, is that the term is not well-used recently. Certainly the "small number in google" = "clear neologism" is obviously unsupportable. Maury (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of no old usage of "delegable proxy." There are very old sources, I'll dig them up when I have the time, among the anarchist community, going back, I think, into the nineteenth century, describing related concepts, but the actual term is new. "Neologism" is really irrelevant here. If the actual topic, the reality behind the name for it (in this case an organizational concept or technique), is notable, then if the word is the wrong word, the article should be renamed to a better one. I'm concerned, myself, with the concept and the application, not with the name for it. As to forking, certainly delegable proxy could be a section under "proxy voting," though really it's about much more than voting (proxies can do a lot more than vote). Delegated voting has an article, and has been used politically, and the person who coined that term considers it an equivalent to delegable proxy. In literal meaning, though, "delegated voting" would simply mean "proxy voting," same difference. Question: is "delegable proxy" sufficiently notable to justify a redirect from it to another article? --Abd (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has suggested that the term delegable proxy was in use before the Web. Superm401 - Talk 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sources can be found. I originally though, from a quick look at the reference list, what the heck, how can anyone ask to delete this? But upon looking more closely, it is doubtful most of them are RS. Also per mango Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a not notable neologism per nominator. Sarah 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn neologism, per the admission above. That could be rebuttable by reliable sources, but while there are sources, they don't seem like reliable sources (e.g., I noted Wikipedia talk pages among the listed sources).--TheOtherBob 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the discussion above. Yellowbeard (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork of proxy voting. Lovelac7 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You are all aware that this is an identical system to delegated voting, right? Just wanted to make sure. Thespian Seagull (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)**[reply]
  • That article should probably be deleted, too. Lovelac7 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SONOMINATEIT. Thespian Seagull (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (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.