87.114.151.195 (talk) |
→Asset voting: strike contributions by blocked vandal User:Fredrick day, who follows me about. |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Keep.''' Be careful about this AfD. See [[Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard]]. This is an [[WP:SPA|SPA]] dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to [[Instant-runoff voting]], such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting [[Bayesian regret]], the [[Center for Range Voting]], etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many [[Voting systems]] articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by [[Lewis Carroll]] in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the [[Center for Range Voting]], and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When [[Asset voting]] was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep.''' Be careful about this AfD. See [[Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard]]. This is an [[WP:SPA|SPA]] dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to [[Instant-runoff voting]], such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting [[Bayesian regret]], the [[Center for Range Voting]], etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many [[Voting systems]] articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by [[Lewis Carroll]] in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the [[Center for Range Voting]], and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When [[Asset voting]] was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Could do with expanding though [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson977]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Could do with expanding though [[User:Ijanderson977|Ijanderson977]] ([[User talk:Ijanderson977|talk]]) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''delete''' - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.131.46|87.114.131.46]] ([[User talk:87.114.131.46|talk]]) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
<s>*'''delete''' - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.131.46|87.114.131.46]] ([[User talk:87.114.131.46|talk]]) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is certainly [[User:Fredrick day]], blocked for vandalism and disruption.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Merge/Redirect''' to [[Center for Range Voting]].--'''''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]''''' 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Merge/Redirect''' to [[Center for Range Voting]].--'''''[[User:Brewcrewer|<span style="font family:Arial;color:green">brew</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Brewcrewer|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#2E82F4">crewer</span>]] [[User talk:Brewcrewer|(yada, yada)]]''''' 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. [http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/multiwin.pdf Subject] [http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/rerange.pdf has] [http://home.versanet.de/~chris1-schulze/votedesc.pdf considerable] [http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/multisurvSS.pdf scholarly] [http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2006.1652289 discussion]. <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. [http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/multiwin.pdf Subject] [http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/rerange.pdf has] [http://home.versanet.de/~chris1-schulze/votedesc.pdf considerable] [http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/multisurvSS.pdf scholarly] [http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SYSOSE.2006.1652289 discussion]. <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:*An academic self-publishing papers on his webspace at his place of employment does not represent "considerable scholarly discussion" - not in the slightest. Have any of those paper been published in peer-reviewed journals? Conference proceedings? What you have listed is just plain old original research. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.195|87.114.151.195]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.195|talk]]) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC){{spa|87.114.151.195}} <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
<s>:*An academic self-publishing papers on his webspace at his place of employment does not represent "considerable scholarly discussion" - not in the slightest. Have any of those paper been published in peer-reviewed journals? Conference proceedings? What you have listed is just plain old original research. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.195|87.114.151.195]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.195|talk]]) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is certainly [[User:Fredrick day]], blocked for vandalism and disruption.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</small>{{spa|87.114.151.195}} <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Comment.''' Four of the five papers mentioned by <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> have been written by Warren Smith. The fifth paper is not on [[asset voting]]. [[User:Yellowbeard|Yellowbeard]] ([[User talk:Yellowbeard|talk]]) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment.''' Four of the five papers mentioned by <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> have been written by Warren Smith. The fifth paper is not on [[asset voting]]. [[User:Yellowbeard|Yellowbeard]] ([[User talk:Yellowbeard|talk]]) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::*Why does it matter who wrote them? If I were to look up all the important papers on string theory, I would find that most of them were by those who created the field. That's only natural. <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
::*Why does it matter who wrote them? If I were to look up all the important papers on string theory, I would find that most of them were by those who created the field. That's only natural. <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: Eh? you've pretty much just established it's OR. Scholarly debate is ''not'' a single academic publishing unreviewed papers on his personal webspace. Scholarly debate is established by the ''response'' of other academics to works published - generally as conference proceedings or in peer review journals or as citations within either of those types of works. What you have selected, in nowway, shape or form represents academia discourse. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.195|87.114.151.195]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.195|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
<s>::: Eh? you've pretty much just established it's OR. Scholarly debate is ''not'' a single academic publishing unreviewed papers on his personal webspace. Scholarly debate is established by the ''response'' of other academics to works published - generally as conference proceedings or in peer review journals or as citations within either of those types of works. What you have selected, in nowway, shape or form represents academia discourse. --[[Special:Contributions/87.114.151.195|87.114.151.195]] ([[User talk:87.114.151.195|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</s><small>This editor is certainly [[User:Fredrick day]], blocked for vandalism and disruption.--[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::*When all papers are by the same person and when none of these papers has ever been published, then this can hardly be called a "considerable scholarly ''discussion''". All papers by Warren Smith on [[asset voting]] are non-notable per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)|this policy]]. [[User:Yellowbeard|Yellowbeard]] ([[User talk:Yellowbeard|talk]]) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::*When all papers are by the same person and when none of these papers has ever been published, then this can hardly be called a "considerable scholarly ''discussion''". All papers by Warren Smith on [[asset voting]] are non-notable per [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper)|this policy]]. [[User:Yellowbeard|Yellowbeard]] ([[User talk:Yellowbeard|talk]]) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:24, 27 May 2008
Asset voting
- Asset voting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete. Original research. Neologism. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. This article has been created by Sarsaparilla who has been blocked indefinitely. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Be careful about this AfD. See Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. This is an SPA dedicated to AfDing articles that are in some way connected to opposition to Instant-runoff voting, such as the theoretical basis for Range Voting Bayesian regret, the Center for Range Voting, etc. He often is technically correct, for example, CRV was probably not notable when he nominated it. However, many Voting systems articles are about topics well-known in the field, written by experts, and thus, as is common, improperly sourced. Removal of all this material leaves behind a POV imbalance. I'll make sure that relevant editors are informed of this AfD, what has often happened is that nobody familiar with the field notices the AfD. Asset Voting is indeed a recent term, a neologism, but the basic method is very old, it was first proposed by Lewis Carroll in the 1880s. If, on searching for sources, it turns out that the article material belongs elsewhere, what of it that can be established by reliable source, I may change my vote to Merge and Redirect. The modern inventor of Asset Voting is Warren Smith, of the Center for Range Voting, and he is notable in his field, probably should have an article. When Asset voting was created, Sarsaparilla was an editor in good standing, the block had to do with later events. Bringing in an ad hominem argument re an AfD is typical Yellowbeard behavior, see his contributions. Sorry to do that myself, but you really should know, he's sucked a lot of editors into quickly voting Delete without having any grasp of the context and details.--Abd (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Could do with expanding though Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
*delete - the article itself supports the idea that it is a neologism and b) that the sourcing is original research. If 3rd party reliable sources were presented, I would consider my position. --87.114.131.46 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)This editor is certainly User:Fredrick day, blocked for vandalism and disruption.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Center for Range Voting.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject has considerable scholarly discussion. Celarnor Talk to me 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:*An academic self-publishing papers on his webspace at his place of employment does not represent "considerable scholarly discussion" - not in the slightest. Have any of those paper been published in peer-reviewed journals? Conference proceedings? What you have listed is just plain old original research. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)This editor is certainly User:Fredrick day, blocked for vandalism and disruption.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted. Celarnor Talk to me 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Four of the five papers mentioned by Celarnor have been written by Warren Smith. The fifth paper is not on asset voting. Yellowbeard (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why does it matter who wrote them? If I were to look up all the important papers on string theory, I would find that most of them were by those who created the field. That's only natural. Celarnor Talk to me 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::: Eh? you've pretty much just established it's OR. Scholarly debate is not a single academic publishing unreviewed papers on his personal webspace. Scholarly debate is established by the response of other academics to works published - generally as conference proceedings or in peer review journals or as citations within either of those types of works. What you have selected, in nowway, shape or form represents academia discourse. --87.114.151.195 (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)This editor is certainly User:Fredrick day, blocked for vandalism and disruption.--Abd (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- When all papers are by the same person and when none of these papers has ever been published, then this can hardly be called a "considerable scholarly discussion". All papers by Warren Smith on asset voting are non-notable per this policy. Yellowbeard (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)