Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STAR voting

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 keep. – Joe (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

STAR voting

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Markus Schulze 12:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale:

WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON.
This article has already been deleted twice (first deletion discussion, second deletion discussion).
This election method has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
None of the Google Scholar hits refers to this method. They refer to all-star voting or to voting schemes where the voters cast "stars" instead of likes/dislikes.
This election method isn't used anywhere. And it has never been used anywhere.
This election method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view. It is a trivial variation of score voting.
Everything in this article is disputed. Examples:
- Reversal symmetry: The first version of this article claimed that STAR voting satisfies reversal symmetry. I removed this claim as this claim was obviously incorrect (Talk:STAR voting#Reversal Symmetry). However, the fact that the first version of this article claimed that this method satisfies reversal symmetry shows that this method has never been analyzed properly.
- Condorcet winners, majority winners, mutual majority: The first version of this article claimed that STAR voting satisfies the majority criterion. However, this claim is obviously incorrect as it is not guaranteed that a majority winner even gets to the runoff (Talk:STAR voting#Majority Criterion). The current version still adds: "With all-strategic voters and perfect information, the Condorcet winner is a strong Nash equilibrium". But this statement is uninteresting as this is true for almost every election method. The only interesting question is whether STAR voting satisfies the Condorcet criterion, the majority criterion, and the mutual majority criterion when the voters don't have perfect information. The clear answer to this question is that STAR voting satisfies none of these criteria in the absence of perfect information.
- Condorcet losers, majority losers: STAR voting has a problem when there are more than 6 candidates. In this case, the voters are urged to give the same rating to more than one candidate even when they strictly prefer the one candidate to the other candidate (according to their sincere preferences). This can lead to situations where a Condorcet loser (or even a majority loser) isn't identified as such and eventually gets elected. This problem is similar to that in plurality voting; when plurality voting is used and there are more than 2 candidates, it can happen that a Condorcet loser (or even a majority loser) isn't identified as such and eventually gets elected; plurality voting is usually considered as violating the Condorcet loser criterion and the majority loser criterion.
- Monotonicity: The current version of this article claims that STAR voting satisfies monotonicity. However, STAR voting has some problems that are usually attributed to a violation of monotonicity. Examples:
  - Changing a ballot from A="5", B="4", C="3", D="2", E="1", F="0" to B="5", A="4", C="3", D="2", E="1", F="0" can change the winner from candidate B to candidate C. (Remember: In STAR voting, a "5" is the best rating and a "0" is the worst rating.) This can happen e.g. when, in the original situation, candidate A and candidate B got into the runoff and candidate B pairwise beat candidate A and, in the new situation, candidate B and candidate C get into the runoff and candidate C pairwise beats candidate B. If this had happened under a different election method, this would have been interpreted as a violation of the monotonicity criterion.
  - The main consequence of the fact that traditional runoff methods violate the monotonicity criterion is that it is a useful strategy for a voter to give an insincerely good ranking to a candidate who can be beaten by this voter's favorite candidate in the runoff. Also in STAR voting, it is a useful strategy for a voter to give an insincerely good rating to a candidate who can be beaten by this voter's favorite candidate in the runoff.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Successfully getting an initiative on the ballot, via >17,000 signatures, easily clears the hurdle of notability. This information is relevant to >250K registered voters in Lane County, OR, and saying it's "too soon" because the election hasn't happened yet is perverse.
Previous deletion is not germane; situation has markedly changed.
Nominator is self-interested; relentlessly promotes the "Schulze method" (aka beatpath, but you wouldn't know that to listen to him) and opposes other election methods across multiple internet venues. I have no problem with the relentless promotion part; that's healthy. But suppressing discussion of alternatives (including getting blocked for edit-warring on this very page) isn't.
Nominator's apparent belief that only peer-reviewed academic sources are WP:RS is incorrect.
...Nominator's argument that "this election method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view" is an unsubstantiated personal opinion that has absolutely no place in AfD. (added in response to edits in nomination)
...Nominator's argument that former versions of this article were inaccurate? I can't even. This does not relate to current accuracy, let alone notability. (added in response to more edits in nomination)
...Nomination has now been edited to also include some concerns with current version of the article. These concerns have some validity and should be worked out through the regular editing process. AfD is not the place for this. (added in response to yet more edits in nomination)
Finally, see talk page for long list of news articles establishing notability.
...Nominator continues to add arguments above that belong on the talk page, not AfD. In the most recent case, it regards monotonicity, a subject where nominator was participating in the talk page discussion but appears to have disengaged from talk (and then gotten a 24-hr ban for 3RR violations on this subject on the article!) when he began to lose the argument.

Homunq (࿓) 12:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the nomination directly touches on monotonicity, the topic for which nominator got a 24-hr WP:3RR ban immediately before nominating, I think this entire nomination should be speedy-closed as an attempted end-run around the 3RR rule. Homunq (࿓) 11:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - amount of sources ppears notability to me, even if there is criticism of the method. - Scarpy (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nardopolo (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of Markus Schulze's WP: deletion reasons withstand scrutiny. Article is neither promotion (WP:PROMOTION) nor original research (WP:OR), multiple notable sources (WP:GNG) now describe the system in detail as well as the campaign to institute it for real public elections, and the WP:TOOSOON reason for prior deletion occurred prior to STAR Voting's coverage in newspapers of record, and before 16,000+ residents of Lane County, Oregon successfully petitioned to place it on the ballot for the upcoming November election. A great many voting systems described on Wikipedia never make it remotely that far towards significant adoption in the real world.

Keep* STAR voting is being used by the Eugene Weekly for their annual best of Eugene voting.

Strong Keep – This is an important article on voting systems. It explains it thoroughly. Redditaddict6 9 17:34, 29 August 2018 (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.