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 of the debate was Delete all. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• favorite betrayal criterion
• generalized strategy-free criterion
• strategy-free criterion
• strong defensive strategy criterion (first nomination)
• summability criterion
• weak defensive strategy criterion (first nomination)

All of these voting system criteria have been defined by Mike Ossipoff, appearing on a few websites and the election methods list, but although a few criteria have found support amongst some members of the latter (favorite betrayal and summability), none have been prominently published somewhere, e.g. in the "Voting Matters" discussion paper by the McDougall Trust. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending prominent publication of the criteria. I had to do a bit of reading to understand just what the articles were talking about. Actually the criteria are quite sound and as far as I can tell, they accurately describe a few possible flaws in voting systems, but they are at the moment, border line original research. Bobby1011 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seconding Bobby's argument. They're a very good set of criterio, and I expect they'll wind up back in WP in a few years - but for now, they don't meet the guidelines. ("strategy-free criterion", the one that seemed most general, only got some 350 google hits, for instance.) Michael Ralston 06:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to vote a weak keep for summability for practical reasons, because we use it in our articles as a relatively NPOV way to evaluate the complexity of a system. I think the effect is described in many places even if it's not called the "summability criterion", but having a title for it is useful. Delete all the others, which are original research that hasn't caught on and hasn't been published. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the fact that summability is supposed to refer to an array that grows polynomially with respect to the number of candidates has AFAIK never been made explicit by Mike Ossipoff. One has to indirectly infer that from e.g. [1] and [2]. That means that either in the article the criterion is too loosely defined to mean anything concrete or filling in the gap there becomes original research. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given that "Mike Ossipoff" is not yet well-known enough to have his own page, I fail to see why any criteria he creates should have theirs. For me, this suggests that these are currently original research. Batmanand | Talk 11:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the less verbose article at Tactical voting.--MacRusgail 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense in the case of the summability criterion. I believe it's true a case has been made that there is a relationship between summability and manipulativity, but it's too farfetched to justify the article being turned into a redirect to tactical voting. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as protologistic original thought farming. -- Krash (Talk) 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unconventional and seem to have been largely developed to push a particular type of voting method. --Henrygb 02:31, 2 March 2006 (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.