Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma primary electoral system
- 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. Owen× ☎ 21:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oklahoma primary electoral system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable electoral system. The phrase "Oklahoma primary electoral system" returns precisely zero hits on Google Books, Google News or Google Scholar. The four hits on Google Web relate to this article. It seems that there is no evidence that this name has general acceptance as a recognised voting system. The Luce reference clearly describes this as one of several examples of the "Hare system", that is Single transferable vote with Hare quota. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep because the nominator really needs to explain what is wrong with the ten listed references, which include books, multiple academic journals, laws and court rulings, and range in date from 1925 to 2006. The subject of the article is analysed directly and in detail. I agree that the title of the article is not ideal, but despite my extensive researches, I have not managed to find a recognised name for the system. I sought advice and have followed it to the best of my ability. But the topic clearly meets the WP:GNG, not least since the ten listed references include one academic article solely about the subject, so I'm not clear quite what the problem is? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 18:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Notability is determined, as we know, by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The four mentions in American Political Science Review are just that, mentions -- oh, and three of the four are incorrectly cited, they cannot all be volume 20(2). The state constitution guide mentions the case Dove v Oglesby and does not give any details of the voting system at all. Three are primary sources from the state itself, not independent, not secondary. The Luce reference is from 1930 reprinted in 2006 and as stated above, simply mentions it as an example of the "Hare system". No signficant coverage at all. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- National municipal review is a publication of the National Municipal League, an advocacy organisation. It does not appear to be a scholarly publication. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that you've not read the articles in American Political Science Review otherwise you would be aware that they analyse the subject directly and in detail, particularly the one by P Orman Ray (though you're right, I did mis-cite some of them, I'll correct that now). The National Municipal Review has a whole article on the system – even if it doesn't meet your threshold of 'scholarly' that doesn't rule it out from being a reliable source, obviously. The Supreme Court ruling ruling the system unconstitutional can confer notability onto the system (of course) as can all the articles which note the ruling's effect. The Luce book doesn't seem to say that this is an example of the Hare system (that doesn't sound right to me – can you quote the passage in question?) and does discuss the system's operation, one of its key elements being that it forces voters to rank all their choices; this observation was also made by P Orman Ray. Clearly significant coverage. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "More important is the third method of transferring votes -- by the voter himself. This is known as the Hare system from its English originator. [...] An Oklahoma statute of 1925 applying the system to primary elections made certain requirements of the voter as to the number of candidates for whom he should vote and on this account was nullified by the Supreme Court in Dove vs Oglesby". Luce, pp.258-259. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. On that basis, I guess that all systems of preferential voting should be merged into the same article because none of them have individual notability if they happen to be a possible application of one particular principle? [Wanders off muttering and eye-rolling...] ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "More important is the third method of transferring votes -- by the voter himself. This is known as the Hare system from its English originator. [...] An Oklahoma statute of 1925 applying the system to primary elections made certain requirements of the voter as to the number of candidates for whom he should vote and on this account was nullified by the Supreme Court in Dove vs Oglesby". Luce, pp.258-259. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that you've not read the articles in American Political Science Review otherwise you would be aware that they analyse the subject directly and in detail, particularly the one by P Orman Ray (though you're right, I did mis-cite some of them, I'll correct that now). The National Municipal Review has a whole article on the system – even if it doesn't meet your threshold of 'scholarly' that doesn't rule it out from being a reliable source, obviously. The Supreme Court ruling ruling the system unconstitutional can confer notability onto the system (of course) as can all the articles which note the ruling's effect. The Luce book doesn't seem to say that this is an example of the Hare system (that doesn't sound right to me – can you quote the passage in question?) and does discuss the system's operation, one of its key elements being that it forces voters to rank all their choices; this observation was also made by P Orman Ray. Clearly significant coverage. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Oklahoma preferential voting system is distinctive enough to merit encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Duper Strong Mega Keep: Notable with enough references. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2011 (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.