Deletion of Score Runoff Voting (2nd nomination)

Comment: David, you might want to take a closer look. The three independent sources are IVN (https://www.facebook.com/IVN/ ~500,000 subscribers on social media), the Center for Election Science, creators of the VSE metric and significant contributors to voting science, and Sightline. Sightline is a research think tank that's been around for more than two decades -- whether or not their articles are "scholarly" may be a matter of debate (http://www.sightline.org/author/kristineberhard/ the author of that paper has like 10 pages of links to research writings on the site), but it doesn't need to be a "scholarly publication" to meet GNG. And your cursory examination of that piece didn't manage to find the actual definition and description of Score Runoff Voting, nor its strategic implications. While you assert SRV is a "trivial variation" of range voting, it has significant performance differences, as evidenced by the CES VSE study. How many more independent sources are needed beyond three before you'll let go of the  claim
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: A trivial variation of range voting with no significant independent reliably-published sourcing (all we have is web sites of dubious significance and reliability), does not pass . The sightline piece in particular is a pamphlet from a partisan group, not a scholarly publication, mentions a different variation (with reweighting), and does so only trivially as a short bullet in a long bulleted list of possibilities.  I see no reason to change my  opinion from last time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TOOSOON)