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. Unfortunately, being close isn't the same as meeting the inclusion criteria, I'm going to salt this as well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

Favorite betrayal criterion (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)

• Delete. Non-notable. Original research. Re-post of deleted material. This article has already been deleted three times (here, here, here). Each time, this article has been recreated shortly afterwards. However, the main problem of this article persists: The "favorite betrayal criterion" has never caught on. There are only 4 papers from 3 different authors in Google Scholar (one thesis and three self-published papers that have never been accepted for publication somewhere else). There is not a single hit in Google Books. There is not a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions this criterion. Markus Schulze 05:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, would a redirect to tactical voting make sense? I did find two books which I added to the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Comment, the added books are about voting in general; they don't even mention the favorite betrayal criterion. Markus Schulze 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe they do, but I'm only leaving it as a crumb for future editors to look at as the entire article needs to be better sourced. I'm not invested in the article one way or another. I do think it makes sense to have a specific article to send interested readers to who want to learn on the subject. Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Comment - the only source I could find and view online was:

Geometric construction of voting methods that protect voters' first choices by Alex Small (Society for Political Methodology, 2010)

The website for said society allows members to upload papers for discussion and consideration - it's not clear if this paper was published in that fashion of by the Society itself. Google results show mentions in a few books, including a couple by Donald G. Saari but the e-books aren't available for me so I can't see whether we're talking about significant coverage or passing mentions. There certainly doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage outside a small handful of academic works. Stalwart111 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep at the least close to meeting the GNG and clearly meets WP:V with no real potential harm for hosting it. Hobit (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Markus Schulze--an idea that looks to have never taken off. Also, I'm not seeing that it's any more notable than last time it was deleted (or the times before that, in fact), and such a long and detailed article really needs more than just one paper as a source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 24 March 2014 (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.