Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy 2.1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy 2.1

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Original research. Vanity. Buzzword-ish. This article is about a voting website. However, there are hundreds of voting websites, and none of them has its own Wikipedia article. The proposed election method has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The proposed election method is uninteresting from the scientific point of view. The links seem to be bogus; for example, one link refers to a 2015 article that claims that Tunisia was about to adopt this method. Markus Schulze 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I don't get the reason you want it to be deleted. If it is because of
    WP:GNG, then it's not valid because of the multiple coverage in independent sources. If it is because of the OR, it can just be removed without removing the article altogether. If it is because the method proposed by this website has not been widely used, it does not matter since it is a thing and is notable. "Uninteresting from the scientific point of view" is pretty much your opinion, since Wikipedia is not about "scientific" things alone (depends on your point of view of what is "scientific"), but things that are notable. The article contains multiple independent sources and should be kept, and any issues concerning OR or advertising can just be removed. Gidev the Dood(Talk) 19:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. The links are not trustworthy. When this or that institution has discussed this method, then it should be possible to provide a link to this institution's website saying that it has discussed this method. However, the provided links refer to articles by supporters of this method claiming that they have discussed this method with this or that institution. So if there was e.g. a link to an official website of the Tunisian government saying that it discussed this election method, then I would agree that this link is reliable; but a link to an article of a promoter of this election method simply claiming that he has discussed this method with representatives of the Tunisian government is, in my opinion, not reliable. Markus Schulze 20:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still not a reason for deletion. Factual errors can just be removed (e.g. "the Tunisian government has adopted D21" if there is no reliable source). The subject of the article is notable because of the coverage in independent sources, and anything concerning factual issues within the article - once again - can just be removed without slaughtering the article itself. I keep my vote. Gidev the Dood(Talk) 21:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing really concerns me. The only independent source that covers the topic seems to be the article about New York and possibly the Portuguese article. The Scotland one does not (passing mention), and other ones are marketing articles about the creator (Carnegie Mellon, Politico.eu) and are not actually about the voting system itself (for instance, discussing the voting system in an academic article, versus being about the creator and then discussing the voting system). It's a really odd article, since a voting system shouldn't in theory be tied in with marketing, but this reads and is sourced like an article that would fail
    WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - I read the Portuguese source and it offers independent coverage about D21. Gidev the Dood(Talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The links are from the years 2013-2016 and they are about attempts to get this method adopted. However, it seems that this method has actually nowhere got adopted. So obviously, despite of campaigning in the years 2013-2016, this method never caught on. Markus Schulze 15:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The method doesn't need to be adopted to have an article. Gidev the Dood(Talk) 20:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, the method needs to be adopted (so that it is notable from the practical point of view) or to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (so that it is notable from the scientific point of view) to pass
WP:GNG. Markus Schulze 04:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me just say that the fact that a system is not currently or has never been implemented is not in itself a factor against inclusion in Wikipedia of an article about it. The foundational criterion is independent notability, even if the subject is some historical relic. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that the claim that "Janeček's and his team are currently working with the parliament of Tunisia to implement D21's system into the country's regional elections" is a hoax. Markus Schulze 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that this claim is shaky despite its mention in a few of the sources. It has since been removed from the article, so I do not believe it is an issue any longer. JackRubenacker (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources
. End of story. If it hasn't, out it goes! If it has, it stays, because this has nothing to do with "creating hoaxes." Articles about appearances of ghosts, crystal ball gazing, and psychics are all over Wikipedia. Why? Because their subject is (drum roll!) notable.
Same thing about the "claim that the proposed method minimizes corruption." We are not here to demonstrate whether or not that claim can be substantiated. We're here to pass judgement on the notability of the system and the notability of the claim. The rest of your comments ("buzzwordish," etc) are about the quality of the text. But this can easily be improved and has little if anything to do with the AfD, as you should know. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Are you going to address my concerns about a possible
WP:COI, please? -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We probably should, appears to be a non-notable video game at first glance. SportingFlyer talk 04:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Prez21 article should probably be merged into "D21" (if the latter survives the AfD process, of course). On its own, Prez21 doesn't seem to have significant independent notability. BTW, it seems to me that it's not just a "video game," strictly speaking, but software that uses simulation and entertainment to familiarize users with a particular system of voting. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    western sources are scarcer than Czech ones. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Disclocure Some days ago, I've been
assume the best of intentions on his part. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The Politico article is about Janczek, though. If Janczek is notable, this at best should be merged with him as it hasn't been studied or researched independently, and none of the articles have significant mentions of the system without also significantly talking about Janczek. SportingFlyer talk 14:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Politico article is about Democracy 2.1. It features its creator, yes, and has him talking about it and explaining what D21 does, but would not exist if it wasn't about the system. The title is telling: "Recalculating democracy." Janeček is many things but whatever personal stuff is there ("mathematician", blah blah) is background to the information about D21 as a voting system intent on "recalculating democracy." The focus is on D21. It's an article about D21. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. The tagline of the article is Czech ‘master of the universe’ uses his money and math skills to revamp how voting works. Janeček's name appears 23 times in the article. Democracy 2.1 appears thrice. The lede discusses Janeček, not his new voting system. The article is primarily about Janeček, as are most of the other non-trivial articles (like the Scottish review of possible voting systems). To me, that shows the problem with the article: the voting system itself is not independently notable from its creator. SportingFlyer talk 01:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because your count is incorrect. The correct count is not about "mentions of name" but about reference, i.e. how much of the text is about the system itself and how much about its creator. Do the count again; it's more difficult than a straight "word-find" but it'll show that out of the 37 subject-involved sentences, some 24 (65%) are strictly about the system, while 13 (35%) are about Janeček strictly as a person, which could be justified as background but let's ignore this. The rest of the text is about other things, i.e. corruption in the Czech Republic, D21 application in Tunisia, etc. (Formulas, image legends, titles are not counted even though that would increase the mentions of the system.) This is an article about Democracy 2.1. The Politico source is fully valid. -The Gnome (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not swayed, meaning we're at an impasse. Almost every other sentence is a direct quote from the creator of the system. It is not independently notable as a political system from its creator based on the sources. (Please note since there are a couple AfDs we disagree on at the moment, I disagree with you respectfully.) SportingFlyer talk 21:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(It goes without saying that the respect is reciprocal. One of my ambitions in discussions is to conduct myself in a civil manner, which I'd aim for even if Wikipedia did not
mandate it
. I do not always succeed but I do try.)
On substance again: I understand your view point; I'm still not sure you understand mine. Suppose Dr Gyro is a film star, a scientist, and a professional gambler. One day, Gyro makes an invention (or claims he made a invention) that he names "Flying Burrito." A national newspaper sends over a reporter to interview Gyro about his so-called invention. When the reporter's piece is published we see that Gyro appears everywhere in it talking about the "Burrito." There is extensive background information about the inventor in the article, yet there is no talk about his film appearances, his gambling exploits, or his other scientific escapades beyond mere mentions; the report is all about the "Flying Burrito;" it if was about Gyro it'd have covered all aspects of his CV. So, I'm asking you, that newspaper piece is evidence of the notability of the already well known person of Dr Gyro or of his invention? -The Gnome (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I still do not think the article is independent enough of the creator to be non-promotional. Many voting systems are named after their creator(s), like Hare-Clark, so I admit who creates the system is important. However, in this instance, the majority of the press in the article, including the Politico article, is
WP:TNT rewrite to focus on the system itself, but I can't find the sources (journals, etc) to do so. SportingFlyer talk 05:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I can understand why you might think the article might be about the creator of the system rather than about the system itself, but if you think that the Politico article is promotional (which denotes intent to promote), then we're much further apart than I thought. I find it unbelievable that the article could be construed as promotional so I'll comment here no more. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede the article isn't promotional in the sense of, say, a paid promotion, but you see articles about this frequently: a person creates something and promotes it through industry press, which typically doesn't fly for
WP:NCORP articles. The other articles aren't very good about this either. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe the source in question claims the system is intended to minimize corruption rather than stating it does do so, and we can edit the article to better reflect that. Do you have any specific examples of what you find to be buzzword-ish? I get a slight sense of it under "Incentives" but not so much under "Background." I was also unclear about your initial argument about original research; do you still feel OR exists even after the recent edits, and if so, could you please specify? JackRubenacker (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To return to the issue of corruption: I do recall seeing at least one Czech source regarding a D21 experiment that was run parallel to the official Czech elections a few years ago. That comparison might give insight on how the method deals with corrupt candidates, but my knowledge of Czech political parties and candidates is not particularly strong. JackRubenacker (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - there is sufficient secondary sourcing, more than enough to provide notability outweighing the OR. It is significant enough as it stands to not be a buzzword (or at least not to globally such, since I feel buzzword-status can be split globally). It more than justifies a keep.
I do feel obliged to say that a COI concern from inventing your own electoral system is the most unique version of such I've seen thus far. The threat of clear cut demonstration of COI or animosity etc was concisely pointed out by The Gnome Nosebagbear (talk) 13:50, 8 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democracy_2.1&oldid=841147054"