Talk:Oklahoma primary electoral system

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nomenclature/notability[edit]

The phrase "Oklahoma primary electoral system" returns precisely zero hits on Google Books, Google News or Google Scholar. The four hits on Google Web relate to this article. It seems that there is no evidence that this name has general acceptance as a recognised voting system. If the system is discussed at all in the literature of voting systems, it must be under some other name, and the article needs to reflect that. Given that the system itself was apparently in use in Oklahoma for a few months in 1925/6, it seems likely that it is not in fact notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the title – basically, the system has no recognised name, and I was advised to essentially make one up.
As to the notability, I wasn't aware that Google-counts had any bearing, and nor was I aware that length of use had any bearing (cf. Lady Jane Grey). If you wish to nominate the article for deletion, WP:AFD is right over there, but given the number of sources and amount of comment – come on, how many electoral systems have been ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Courts? – I wouldn't have thought that was a good use of time. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 17:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined, as we know, by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Google is a useful indicator, as WP:GOOGLEHITS points out. If it is necessary to make up a name then presumably nonone since 1926 has found it worthwhile to do so. There appears to be no significant independent coverage of this system -- I currently see two mentions in contemporaneous reviews. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that a Supreme Court ruling and an article, plus a page of another, analysing the topic in two major political journals do not constitute significant coverage, then go ahead and nominate the article for deletion. Personally, I can see so little merit to such an argument that I won't be continuing this discussion here. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth merging to Voting systems? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's notable, I don't think so, no. I'm just adding another source or two now as it happens. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 17:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that, if anything, you may be establishing the notability of "Dove v Oglesby". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the article for deletion and see where you get. I'm not going to bicker about this with you. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Luce reference at p.258 describes this as an example of the "Hare system": presumably STV with Hare quota. That suggests that the material might belong at Single_Transferable_Vote#History_and_current_use or History_and_use_of_the_Single_Transferable_Vote#United_States. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so desperate to get this article scrapped? ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 18:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can you quote this passage about the Hare system, because I can't find it, and it doesn't sound right to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference above, Luce p.258, link and quoted here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]