- Favorite betrayal criterion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
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]
- I thought we agreed to redirect this title to Voting_system, where it is covered under Voting_system#Evaluating_voting_systems_using_criteria? This new paper looks like a good source to use there, but is not nearly enough to justify a stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 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]
|
