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. Stifle ( talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Unified Primary (  | 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. This initiative didn't make it on the ballot. This initiative's website ( http://www.unifiedprimary.org) has expired. Markus Schulze 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I don't think that the reason stated above is a basis for deletion. Notability is not temporary. If this concept was notable during the first AfD, it still is. Since the first AfD closed as "no consensus", however, notability remains in question: we had experienced editors on both sides of that question, as well as editors whose interest seemed to more of a matter of advocacy. The issue was not, and still isn't, whether anyone actually uses this system: we can have articles about theoretical election models. The question should be whether the proposed system has received sufficient discussion to be notable under WP:GNG. Accordingly, it should be noted that a much longer version of this article was drastically cut, shortly after the AfD closed, by an editor opposed to the article, and in that curtailed state the article has remained since. The stated basis for this edit was that the prior version of the article was an advocacy piece, and perhaps it was, but the edit removed a number of reliable sources that might be taken as evidence for the notability of the concept. For my own part, I'm still unclear if "unified primary" is a sufficiently specific and descriptive name for the topic: I note, for example, that this article from The Oregonian called it an "approval voting primary". -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Well, this election method has never been used anywhere. And it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This election method is uninteresting from the theoretical point of view. The claim, that this method might be on the November 2014 ballot in Oregon, was the only reason why this article hasn't already been deleted last time. Markus Schulze 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. My point is that, as long as approval voting isn't used for primaries, the mere fact that approval voting could be used for primaries isn't sufficient to justify a separate Wikipedia article. Similarly, there is no Wikipedia article on "instant-runoff voting primary" or "Condorcet voting primary" or "range voting primary". Markus Schulze 08:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep Although I cannot point to any policy that would justify a "keep," (except perhaps that the subject entered into public debate), I believe there remains "encyclopedic value" in the article - in its current form. Enos733 ( talk) 23:42, 28 January 2015 (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.