Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional approval 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 delete. W.marsh 14:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting[edit]

Delete. Original research. This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. Yellowbeard 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Blueboy 96 20:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The lack of references and outside links indicate a lack of notability. I tried a search too, came up with zippo. - Rjd0060 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as quite notable and sourceable, see, e.g., Ghits: [1] and from my own memory, was championed by Anita Hill. I was tempted to close this debate myself with a keep, except for WP:AGF. Bearian 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thinking of Lani Guinier? --Groggy Dice T | C 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Anita Hill nor Lani Guinier ever promoted this election method. Yellowbeard 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep A real theoretical system. It has a couple google scholar hits in reliable sources. GRBerry 02:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I couldn't find a single reliable source. All Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors or mailing lists. Yellowbeard 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google scholar is not Google. Google is not google scholar. You didn't look in the place I said to. For an example, see http://www.math.wisc.edu/~kach/mathematics/gpslogic/voting.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) (access permissions required, so alternatively google cache thereof in html) or http://www.iiia.csic.es/People/enric/papers/egov.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) or google cache therof in html). There are lots of limited preview Google book results. If you can't find sources for this, it is because you aren't trying. GRBerry 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there is not a single Google book result. You only forgot the quotation marks. Yellowbeard 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other two links contain only verbatim excerpts from the Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, it becomes more and more popular to copy large verbatim excerpts from randomly chosen Wikipedia articles and to insert them in one's own paper to bloat it. I wouldn't call such papers "reliable". Yellowbeard 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This method has neither been published nor used anywhere. There are zero Google book results. And all Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors or mailing lists. It is quite obvious that this article is original research. Yellowbeard 11:14, 21 October 2007 (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.