Favorite betrayal criterion – Withdrawn by nominator with no !votes to overturn. At DRV we periodically get a request to review this; such requests guarantee attendance from Markus Schulze and Homunq, two subject-matter experts who take differing views about this subject and only ever appear at DRV for this one discussion. I believe that there have now been a grand total of seven AfDs and four deletion reviews. In this case Homunq has temporarily withdrawn their nomination, but I'm sure it will be back!—S MarshallT/C 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This now has a peer-reviewed citation at [1]; although that paper has not yet been published, it has reportedly gone through a full process of peer review and been accepted for publication by the journal "Voting Matters". Homunq (࿓) 02:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But since we made that agreement, the article has acquired an "explanation needed" tag on the criterion in the table. Obviously, somebody who wasn't a party to that deal feels that this criterion is insufficiently explained. Expanding the explanation in the article itself is not optimal; it should be a separate article, like all the rest of the criteria in the table. The basic reason for deleting this article was that it was not cited in WP:RS; now that it is, it should be treated like every other criterion. Homunq (࿓) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the journal "Voting matters" has become inactive. Its website says [2]: "Publication of Voting matters is suspended at present and is not receiving submissions." Markus Schulze 13:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have specific knowledge of the details of this situation, but cannot say how without blowing my anonymity. (I suspect MarkusSchulze can guess my identity, and that's fine, but I don't want to make it explicit.) The article has in fact been peer reviewed and accepted for publication, but I cannot prove that at this time, so I'm withdrawing this request for deletion review until it is in fact published. Homunq (࿓) 02:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
