Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified Primary (2nd nomination)
I don't think that the reason stated above is a basis for deletion. |Notability is not temporary.  ''If'' this concept was notable during the first AfD, it still is.  Since the first AfD closed as "no consensus", however, notability remains in question: we had experienced editors on both sides of that question, as well as editors whose interest seemed to more of a matter of advocacy.  The issue was not, and still isn't, whether anyone actually uses this system: we can have articles about theoretical election models.  The question should be whether the proposed system has received sufficient discussion to be notable under . Accordingly, it should be noted that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Primary&oldid=592923608 a much longer version of this article  was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_Primary&diff=595119487&oldid=592923608 drastically cut, shortly after the AfD closed, by an editor opposed to the article, and in that curtailed state the article has remained since.  The stated basis for this edit was that the prior version of the article was an advocacy piece, and perhaps it was, but the edit removed a number of reliable sources that might be taken as evidence for the notability of the concept.  For my own part, I'm still unclear if "unified primary" is a sufficiently specific and descriptive name for the topic: I note, for example, that http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/10/dave_frohnmayers_son_proposes.html this article from ''The Oregonian'' called it an "approval voting primary
— User:Arxiloxos, 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NTEMP||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)