Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deviation from proportionality (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality. No one appears to be arguing keep but most people seem to agree that the topic is notable but lacks significant converage. v/r - TP 22:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deviation from proportionality (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)

The last AfD was closed as no consensus, as there were 2 editors suggesting deletion, and 2 suggesting a merge, but to different targets. There were no keep comments. I still believe this should be a straigt delete, but am hoping that after six and a half years with a notability tag, we can finally establish what should be done here. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That last nomination ended two days ago--what has changed since then? If you disagreed with the outcome of the previous nomination, you could ask for a review. But AfD is not for re-nominating until you get an outcome you like. --Mark viking (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mark viking:, it's not about getting an outcome I like, it's about getting an outcome. There was no outcome from the last discussion, and the main issue was lack of participation, which may be addressed by re-discussing. I don't care what the outcome is, as long as there's the chance to develop a consensus. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality. Incdices of disproprortionality are well-known in the context of assessing the quality of proportional-representation voting systems; the Gallagher Index is another example. Deviation from proportionality is discussed in published papers like [1], [2], [3], and the ref [4] from the article. These papers (and others found with a simple Gscholar search) show the topic to be verifiable. There may be enough secondary discussion to pass notability, so a Keep would be OK with me, too. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, verifiable information should be preserved rather than deleted. Deviation from proportionality is a measure of proportionality, so Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality is a natural target. The topic is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is real, as I have seen this phrase many times in search results. However, none of these sources contain WP:SIGCOV. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• COoment I just wanted to add that as this has already been closed once as no consensus, mainly because there was poor participation, I think it should be relisted as many times as possible to get an answer, so this is not sitting with a notability tag for the next six years as well. 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Boleyn: If Template:Notability encourages editors to think that, then that template should be taken to TfD and deleted. As far as I can see, notability issues are not normally time sensitive and we should not therefore normally behave as though they are. (Non-notable BLPs seem to be an exception to this). James500 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Mark viking has demonstrated the concept to be verifiable, but given its low profile a merge seems preferable to a simple keep. His proposed merge target seems entirely reasonable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can see advantages to merging/redirecting to that target. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the sources available, and the obvious potential target for merger, it is obvious to me that this page should not be deleted. James500 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – There is too little information. Notability hasn't been established and looks closer to a dictionary entry, which Wikipedia is not. Kingjeff (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2014 (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.