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 and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. There is some useful and relevant information to that article here, but this is essentially a POV fork which could be condensed and included in that article. I have redirected; others may merge as they see fit. Black Kite 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instant-runoff voting controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Instant-runoff voting controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was created for POV purposes. There are very few references (10), and all are weak. Of the few references given one is "electowiki", a wiki (which are not considered credible sources per Wikipedia policy). Another reference is written by the "Center for Range Voting" a POV group. And another source is "Behind the ballot box: A citizen's guide to voting systems" by Amy, Douglas J. This book has only been cited 3 times, and has no positive reviews, is not an important work, and not considered influential in the field of political science or international relations. This is also a fork article that draws attention by claiming it's about "controversies". Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified all editors about this AfD, who either voted in the previous AfD, or edited the subject article or its Talk page, who had not been previously notified or commented, and who are not blocked or vanished. That's a total of 12 editors, some of whom may have long been inactive.--Abd (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there are occurrences of discussion about controversy associated with IRV, there don’t seem to be reliable independent secondary sources discussing “Instant-runoff voting controversies” per se. Possibly, this article can stand on the basis that it is a spin-off article. Instant-runoff voting is already big. If not, it is still clearly a real topic, with sources, and so merging is appropriate. Whether kept or merged, a fair bit of editorial work is required. The list of pros, then list of cons style is not good, and overall it reads too much like OR. For a controversial topic, in line citations are especially important. NB these criticisms are not reasons for deletions.
POV allegations are easy to make, can be fixed. POV as a criterion for deletion is a POV battling tactic and is inappropriate. There is no reason to suppress this information. To the extent that there is a fork of content, POV or otherwise, the duplicated content should be merged, not deleted.
Sockpuppetry is irrelevant to this debate. This is a controversial subject, and POV exists. This means that care is needed, not deletion. We do not censor controversial subjects.
If kept, a serious cleanup is required. I can’t see it being fixed in a week. Perhaps a user is interested in userfying? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abd's responses moved to talk page by User:Stifle [1]


Fair enough. I have changed my !vote to Merge and redirect. Yilloslime (t) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find this puzzling. The main article contains hardly any reference to opinion contrary to IRV, there are few exceptions. The plan was to explore the controversy in detail, in the Controversies article, finding consensus there, then take back a brief summary to the main article. So what argument was there was moved, and replaced with a link to the Controversies article. What is left is specific to a discussion of the method, not, as far as I can recall, to arguments as such. --Abd (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read both articles and disagree. Instant-runoff voting controversies contains material that goes way beyond the coverage found in any independent secondary sources. It contains too much OR, ie. wikipedian-synthesised material based only on primary sources. This stuff must be trimmed. Much of the rest is in instant-runoff voting, and thus this is a content fork. Merging of the remaining acceptable material (perhaps there is little) and converting of the article to a redirect is definately appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, this puzzles me as well. The controversies article contains detailed material covering notable arguments that is probably too much detail for the main article. There is a problem with summary presentations: it is difficult to accomplish the summarization without resulting in a POV slant. Consensus is generally easier to find -- at least it has been on this topic -- when freed from the argument that "this is too much detail for this article." And this is why actual editorial decisions, and whether to merge and how to merge and all that, are not made ordinarily by AfDs. It's complicated, and WP:FORK specifically suggests content forks when they are a result of editorial consensus. Consensus can change, but I'm a bit puzzled as to who, exactly, is going to accomplish the merger. We started with it all in one article, and our experience with that is why the controversies article were started. This is absolutely not a "POV Fork," explicitly and clearly, even though it might appear to some not familiar with the topic. There are two editors who have voted here who are explicitly IRV advocates. The voted "Keep maybe" and "Undecided" and the latter vote was, in its explanation, clearly a "Keep" while not approving of some of the actual content. And I'm a critic. The three of us have been major editors of the main article, recently, and we frequently disagree there, strongly. We came to agreement about the subject article. The suggestion I've seen above that the main article doesn't have a decent summary and that the summary should be done first is actually bizarre. How can what we have not agreed upon be summarized? It is true that there is a lot of material in the controversies article that pushes the boundaries of OR and reliance on primary sources. But, again, the solution to that is pretty simple. Take out, or, preferably, tag questionable material. I haven't done that myself because I don't, as a matter of personal policy, remove material that I believe to be true, and verifiably so, based on technicalities of Wikipedia guidelines. Call it WP:IAR, if you like, but I do not apply this selectively. I don't take out material that can be seen as pro-IRV based on imperfection, or even lack, of sourcing. And, frankly, I don't think anyone else should either; and the old wiki way was to ask for sources when the material was doubtful. Not to delete for lack of sourcing; that's why tagging is more civil than simply deleting. The alleged problems of this article are editorial problems. The controversy exists, there is secondary source, and, with time, it will be so referenced or removed. --Abd (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUMMARY provides major guidance on this; the level of notable detail requires a separate article, so what must be done is to (1) tighten the controversies article per sourcing standards, POV balance, etc., and (2) restore a summary of the arguments to the main article. These are ordinary editorial decisions. Merger, while far better than deletion, would be much more difficult, because the main article is already long. If we find consensus, or at least stability, in the subarticle, we then have a source from which to derive what goes back in the main article. Finding consensus on summaries is far more difficult than finding consensus on a detailed description. And where the articles deviate, Keeping articles synchronized suggests the ((sync)) tag. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you understand: this article was created because the necessary detail was, in fact, burdensome in the main article. Personally, whatever POV "agenda" I have would be better served by having the critical material back in the main article, but *consensus* is better served by focusing on the debate in detail *first* and then summarizing in the main article. I'm aware of *many* sources that are available, and the decision of what sources are appropriate, once notability and the existence of some RS is established, is not for an AfD at all. It's an editorial decision. If the "fact" is that an argument is being presented, yes, primary source is an attributed statement from an official web site of a notable advocacy organization. But for this I've seen primary source used many times. It is clearly verifiable. Yes, again, reliable secondary source is generally better. The problem, though, is a balance between the requirements of RS and NPOV, and there is a very good reason we set up guidelines and leave the actual decisions to a consensus of the editors. Just today, I inserted some material into the controversies article without sourcing it. I know that what I inserted, to those who know the subject, is not controversial. If I'm wrong, the other editors will take it out, they are not shy. I did add cn tags, though. I'll come back and provide sources, and what is not properly sourced will ultimately be removed, but I consider article writing a process, they do not arrive lotus-born. Old style Wikipedia, I guess. It's what built this place. --Abd (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just found an Australian site, apparently a reliable secondary source, with a whole list of pro and con arguments about preferential voting, so some of the argument sources will be moving to that site; some are already sourced elsewhere. It confirms, by the way, some arguments that some have, on the face, considered contradictory and preposterous. Which goes to show.... And there is a lot to be sourced from Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone, newly published and widely reviewed (and thus there is more from the reviews, including one just published in the The Nation). The statement that most of the con arguments apply to any voting method simply is not true, though. I'll discuss this in Talk for the article. In any case, the specific arguments are, in fact, being raised specifically regarding IRV, and that they apply to "any voting method" is a synthetic conclusion that is itself one of the arguments (a "defense") raised for IRV, don't recall if that is in the article, but we see it all the time ("They say that IRV has problems, but Arrow proved that all voting systems have problems." But Arrow did not prove that, it's an incorrect popularization of Arrow's Theorem, which only applies to certain kinds of voting systems.) --Abd (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting more and more puzzled by the latest comments. The Controversies article isn't about the voting system, as such, it's about the debate over it. That debate is mostly not in the main article on the voting system, and we are only considering one system, for the most part (there is a section in the IRV article about similar systems). Some of what is in the Controversies article could go back into the main article, but much of it, though notable (I claim, sources are in the process of being provided, a little day by day -- this article grew gradually, with a number of different editors working on it), would be peripheral to the main article. Instant-runoff voting is what it is regardless of court cases over its constitutionality, or arguments being made about its expense, for example. What is specifically about the method is timeless. Note that there are also articles about the History of the method, and about the recent Implementations in the United States. All of these go into detail that is not appropriate for the main article. This was why a consensus of editors -- not just pro or con editors -- agreed on setting up subarticles. They weren't intended to be POV Forks, and that alone disqualifies them as such (even though any article can take on a POV color.) --Abd (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is (mostly) *not* about the debate. The article is the debate. Those are quite different things. If it were about the debate I would get to know who, when, where, why, with what consequences, etc.. We have nearly nothing of that. What we have is the debate, the alleged pros and cons of one (or several) voting systems, which is merely a restatement of their characteritcs and thus a duplication of the main article(s). - Nabla (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is not based on a clear reading of the article. Not every argument has been sourced, but if an argument can't be sourced as Nabla thinks it should, then it should be taken out. Because the article was written by editors with knowledge of the debate, much was put in as skeleton text, unsourced. There were also some sources taken out by editors not understanding that sourcing requirements for arguments differ subtly from sourcing for other kinds of fact. We can't source a fact to a biased source, but we may, in some cases, source an argument in that way. FairVote, for example, is a notable proponent of IRV, and thus can be a source for arguments. But not for facts about the voting system, nor for facts about other systems. Yes, there is material in the article that duplicates what is in other articles. That's necessary, in fact, and would happen wherever the arguments are examined. Here, such material is presented in relation to arguments that are being made. So the fact that IRV is not monotonic is a fact, NPOV. It is not an argument, it's just a fact. However, then, it is asserted as an argument, as a reason not to use IRV. This is what brings it into the article. Then, in the plan, we source the argument. Is it actually being made, notably? Then we have what can be found in reliable source regarding the argument. Is the argument a fact? I.e., is IRV actually monotonic, or is this some deceptive claim? RS shows that it is true (and the fact of it can be verified by anyone who looks at sample elections). What, then, does this mean? Is it important for a voting system to be monotonic. There are various views on this, and they should be noted in the article. That's it. The article does not come to conclusions, generally. There might be a section in the article about conclusions. I.e., RS that draws conclusions about IRV, overall. Some of the sources currently in the article do that, but this hasn't been a part of the organization of the article, so far. It should be. The pro and con sections are *not* mere restatements of voting system characteristics, and there is no detailed analysis of arguments in the main article. Whenever that was attempted, it was taken out, with the argument that it was too much detail. And, ultimately, I came to agree with that, and *all* the editors actively working on the article agreed, and, so far, none of them have come down on the side of merge and redirect. Only editors relatively unfamiliar with the topic, coming to an easy conclusion that this is a POV fork, which it most certainly is not (I'd be at a loss to decide what POV this article favors), have voted for merge or delete. And who is going to do the work of merge? If arguments from this article should be in the main article, have any editors started to put them in? I haven't noticed. What is preventing them? Note the different opinions in this Afd. (1) there is nothing worth saving in the article. (2) there is plenty worth saving. (3) what is here should be merged. (4) what is here is separately notable and deserves an article. I'm not terribly disturbed by a merge decision, it is far better than delete, precisely because it is easy to undo if, when we actually try to merge, we find it isn't working. Note that my political POV would suggest Merge. That makes the arguments more visible! But I'd suggest that such a decision would be using an AfD to make content decisions. Not good policy. Editorial consensus should make content decisions, once it is established that an article is on a notable topic and that there is sufficient reliable source for that. Consensus makes decisions through detailed discussion, and detailed discussion here has partly been moved to Talk, because it is, allegedly, out of place. I'd agree, in part. We shouldn't be making content decisions here, beyond notability and possible verfiability. Merge/Redirect, properly, is a recommendation to editors that they do not have to follow, it is not binding. The deletion guideline notes that, if a merge recommendation is not followed, the article may come up again for AfD. So Merge is really quite like Keep or "no consensus." --Abd (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be an article contrasting voting systems in general. But most voting system debate in the U.S. involves instant-runoff voting, at the present. That is why there is an article on it, there is plenty of reliable source, with detail that probably doesn't belong in the main article. As to merging the "list of arguments" into the IRV article, the present article is not merely a list of arguments, and the arguments (the brief summaries presented in the section headings) can be quite misleading by themselves. They make claims that may not be true. We did have a list of arguments in the main article, and it was constantly being shifted when editors would see an argument they thought false and they would change it or take it out. But an *argument*, if attributed, is a fact even if the content of the argument is false. Now, if we do what Mr. Rubin suggests, with detailed arguments moved to a new article, how would that article be different from the one being considered here? That is exactly what happened. We moved the list of arguments that used to be in the main article into this article, so they could be clearly presented and each argument explored in the light of what is known about the arguments. Obviously, ultimately, everything should be properly sourced. That isn't always done at the beginning, people write what they know because there often is not time to add sources at first. Should material be added without sources? Well, actual practice, it was done from the beginning and it is how the project grew. It's efficient. Somebody thinks the material, unsourced, should not be there? They can take it out and, perhaps, the one who put it there, then, being familiar with the topic, finds and adds a source. Or someone else adds a source. Or no source can be found and it stays out. (But, rereading what Mr. Rubin wrote, it seems he thinks we should do exactly what was planned, and Talked about, take the list of arguments and put it back into the main article. The problem was that doing this without having consensus on the topic of the controversy was extraordinarily difficult. The controversies article was the place to find that consensus, and then there is something coherent to summarize. It still won't be easy.--Abd (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the major voting systems used in the US are plurality and runoff voting, with most cities using plurality-at-large for multi-member districts. (Although, I'm forced to admit I don't understand why approval voting is not considered a simplified alternative to plurality-at-large. But I digress.) I don't see IRV as significant enough to have an article on controversies, which, for the most part, apply to other alternative voting systems.
This article should either be folded back into IRV or expanded into a general voting system controversies article. The present, and probably proposed, status is that of an inappropriate WP:FORK of IRV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On your digression of Approval as alternative to plurality-at-large, overvoting is reasonably restricted for the case of primaries to reduce the field. Often plurality-at-large elections have a primary with N votes where 2N candidates progress for N seat elections. Overvoting would allow some voters to get their favorites in AND allow extra votes try to knock out their strongest competitors via insincere voting for candidates expected to lose in the general election. Also, allowing overvoting would further risk harm voters forced to bullet vote (or limit their votes) in the primary for fear of losing their favorite(s). SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the idea of context of controversies not exclusive to IRV. Most of my attempts to edit this article tried to categorize what problems existed in other system, i.e. properties that exist in IRV that also exist under any runoff system, or plurality. The most confusing part of the article to me (as someone who has explored EVERY issue perhaps) is criticisms come from opposite sides - (1) those who fear moving away from plurality (most of the public criticism of IRV), and (2) those who think IRV is too small of a reform (EM hacks who want Approval or Range voting or whatever magic trick that is even more drastically different from what we have.) Grouping arguments both critics together is rather confusing to say the least! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 22:33, 21 May 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.
More