Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proportional representation in presidential systems

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional representation in presidential systems[edit]

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

Orphan article and unsourced, for almost 10 years, it has always been a stub and seems to be written from a POV perspective. B.Lameira (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on proportional representation.Vorbee (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete --proportional representation. U.S. readers learn most when congressional elections are compared with other countries. Proportional representation is not relevant to a U.S. presidential election anyway. A parliamentary system, yes (result of original [bad] research). Rhadow (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Merge and delete for an explanation of why that is a bad idea. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced essay; don't see the need for this article. Number 5 7 17:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 08:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an un-referenced, main-space orphan, and generally unnecessary sub-page of Proportional representation. I don't see any content worth merging. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all unsourced WP:OR. I'm all for WP:ATD, but in this case, there's nothing here worth merging, so just delete it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2017 (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.