- 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. ChrisO 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be original research, using WP to promote an original idea. Leuko 03:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does seem to read more like a proposal then an article. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Deletion So what if it's proposal- what does that matter, why should it be deleted- just because Leuko has some opinion about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tparker393 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: My opinion alone does not matter. That's why I brought it to AfD - so we can get a consensus of what other editors think about the article in relation to WP policies. Leuko 03:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consult WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V. -- Kicking222 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT a soapbox. "Nathan Larson"+"Larson Plan" and "Nathan D. Larson"+"Larson Plan" each get zero G-hits. -- Kicking222 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone can offer a verifiable source showing the noteworthiness of this proposal. NawlinWiki 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Should be kept under the same criteria as Amar plan. If you google +"amar plan" +"vikram amar" the only results are wikipedia-related, and if you google +"amar plan" +"akhil amar," the same is true (although it appears there are about 3,810 results, if you click through the pages, it says "in order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 21 already displayed."). Tparker393Tparker393 03:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unless I am missing something, Amar plan does not have a page on Wikipedia. Thus are you saying by your comment that Larson plan should be deleted? Leuko 03:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as unverifiable soapboxing. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very obscure, unverifiable, original research has no place in wikipedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep John Koza, whose book is cited, appears to be a fairly notable computer scientist, who has been discussing voting reform for some time. If his book mentions Larson, instead of only the other way around, this may be a reliable source. JCScaliger 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Google search for Election of the President Using Nationwide Instant Runoff Voting without the Need for an Amendment to the United States Constitution yields only the WP article. The word "larson" appears exactly zero times in Every Vote Counts. Absent sourcing this fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT a soapbox, and problably 17 other WP:NOTs. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 29 August 2006 (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.