This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Original research. Majority Choice Approval's only Google hits are the election-methods mailing list and Wikipedia. Delete. RSpeer 20:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Whoops, forgot to finish nomination process. RSpeer 14:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to be active, judging from its history and talk pages, and it's mentioned on several individual criterion pages, such as monotonicity criterion and participation criterion. It may be present in published literature under a different name, but that's not a reason to delete. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:17, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • The reason it is referenced on so many pages is that the person who invented Majority Choice Approval contributed to most of those pages. The term does not come from published literature, but the election-methods@electorama.org mailing list, where obscure methods known by nobody else are debated endlessly. They have already set up Electowiki for this kind of information. If it is deleted, I will look for references in other articles and remove them. RSpeer 00:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, vanity. RickK 05:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Three simple words: No original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, delete. Radiant_* 09:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. For a minute or two, I was afraid we were seeing more Iasson material. Barno 16:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, there are significantly worse articles; e.g. Weak defensive strategy criterion, Strong defensive strategy criterion, Strategy-Free criterion, Generalized Strategy-Free criterion or Favorite Betrayal criterion. In my opinion, this article needs some work; but deleting this article would be the wrong signal. Markus Schulze
  • I don't think there being worse articles is a reason to keep this article, which completely fails Wikipedia's standards of notability. I will put the other articles up for VfD soon. RSpeer 01:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Never mind about VfDing the others. After a bit of Googling, it seems that Mike Ossipoff's criteria have been quoted by numerous websites. Even if the criteria are flawed, I think we have to consider them notable, so I won't VfD them. Majority Choice Approval, on the other hand, is still not notable. RSpeer 01:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree this article needs some thoughtful editing, but deleting it would remove valuable information.--Fahrenheit451 21:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.