Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequential proportional approval voting

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential proportional approval voting

Delete. Original research. Possibly a hoax. This article claims that this method has been proposed in the early 1900's; but the article doesn't give any references. It seems that this method has never been published nor been used anywhere. In any case, it is clear that the term "sequential proportional approval voting" cannot be the original name of this method, since the term "approval voting" hadn't been used before the 1970's. Yellowbeard 13:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its an offshute of Proportional approval voting, delete the article and just add Sequential under examples. Warrush
Merge with Proportional approval voting iff it can be sourced. Otherwise, delete as WP:OR. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the proportional approval voting article already has a section on sequential proportional approval voting. Yellowbeard 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no notability is shown with citations and mentions, but if sourced, merge to Thorvald N. Thiele or Proportional approval voting. Otherwise, delete.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge is not needed per Yellowbeard. Bigdaddy1981 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as per this mailing list it's real and was even used in Sweden for a short time (only for party lists, though). Suggests it's possible to properly source, but perhaps not using online and/or English sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We really need an expert in the area to take a look at this. The creator's other contributions look legitimate, so I doubt very much that it's anything other than real. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 27 June 2007 (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.