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. Swarm ♠ 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proportional approval voting (edit | 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 per WP:G4. Markus Schulze 07:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the reason for prior deletion no longer applies - this article was previously deleted, as it had insufficient sources, and was therefore deemed 'original research'. This is no longer the case, and while the article is substantially the same as before (because the method itself has not changed!) there are now articles and papers about it including one from 2014 regarding algorithmic complexity. In addition to this, it appears to fit within the project Elections and Referendums, as noted on its talk page by Number 57, which is aiming to, among other things, improve coverage of various voting methods. Felixaldonso (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Note: User:Felixaldonso is the re-creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new article is currently well sourced (issue raised in past discussions). The lead specifies it is theoretical and the fact that several people other than the inventor have published articles about it points to notability. Furthermore, the deletion discussions date back to 2009 and 2007. Things have changed since then. This is not the kind of repetitive recreation that G4 is meant to deal with. The article should be evaluated for its own merits. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the citations to credible sources that have appeared since the previous deletions: Noyster (talk), 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Felixaldonso & Happysquirrel. Subject is credibly sourced & notable.--JayJasper (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment large parts of the article's text seem to have been copied verbatim from this paper (Section D, on page 9). Or has the author of the paper had access to the previously deleted Wikipedia article, and copied it from there? What about WP:COPYVIO? Kraxler (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has now been reworded to address these concerns. Some of the wording was from the previously deleted article, however the age of the paper you reference is ambiguous, so the article has been changed. Felixaldonso (talk) 19:38, 3 August 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.