Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European election law association


 * 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 Speedy delete as author requests deletion (G7) and insufficiently notable (A7). --Nlu (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

European election law association
Delete. Hoax. Vanity. The European election law association doesn't consist of "over 200 academics and election law experts from over 80 leading universities and research institutions". It consists only of one person (Jurij Toplak). Yellowbeard 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Keep - You claim it is a hoax. I don't know on what is your decision based. Please join the Eurela listserv at eurela@lists.ucla.edu and you will be able to meet all the people involved and read the network's news. Contact the association's details if you wish. See the list of universities at the http://www.eurela.org/index.php?/pages/about.html. For the list of names contact eurela@eurela.org J.
 * Delete - Hoax. Kill it. --PresN 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Took out the work 'leading' from the first sentence as it might be a vanity. everything else seems ok.153.5.19.111 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) J.

Keep - Nobody has disputed the article since July 28. Nobody emailed eurela in order to check the proofs of its existence and membership. As said, it would be a pleasure to show them to anyone. Since nobody contacted me or the network and nobody continued to argue for the deletion of this page I suggest the case to be closed and the article to be kept. 153.5.19.111 21:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) J.

Delete. I doubt that eurela is more than a website by Jurij Toplak. If J really has "proofs of its existence and membership" then he should show them. Yellowbeard 11:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep

Yellowbeard: I scanned eight of the 200 membership applications (although they were not supposed to be public) and publishd them online in order to show you they do exist: www.volitve.si/s103.jpg www.volitve.si/s104.jpg www.volitve.si/s105.jpg www.volitve.si/s106.jpg www.volitve.si/s107.jpg www.volitve.si/s108.jpg www.volitve.si/s109.jpg www.volitve.si/s110.jpg

If you still doubt I can send you all 200 applications via email. I can also invite you to the mailinglist or to one of the events. If you will still doubt after that, I give up :( Topjur01 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It seems there is no more discussion needed. Someone close this and remove the AFD text. 164.8.4.123 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure where this hoax accusation is coming from, as my cursory perusal of google results turned up this CV from an emminent political scientist that mentions his membership in the organization. I think the real discussion that should happen here is about notability. I request relisting so that it can happen.--Chaser T 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment In response to 164.8.4.123's question on my talk page, one of the admins monitor AfD will take care of closing and relist as necessary. We can start talking about notability now. The applicable guideline, WP:ORG, hasn't been approved by the community yet, but it would require some third-party coverage of the organization, which is pretty similar to our existing verifiability policy. That being said, we have a leader from the organization participating in this AfD. If there is any third-party or press coverage, I'm sure they are aware of it and can point it out to us. But until that happens, I'd have to still say delete. I wouldn't be surprised to see this relisted to give you some more time.--Chaser T 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless something changes.--Chaser T 17:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep - I checked the notability on Google. The association publishes European Election Law News and this publication gives over 15.000 hits on Google. Moreover, it is cited by emminent political scientists on their webpages - Arend Lijphart (an undisputed authority on elections and former president of APSA) and Matthew Søberg Shugart of University of California are just two of them.The Association has been recognized in official documents by the governments of Azerbaijan (http://www.cec.gov.az/en/5millimajlisre2006/international%20observers.doc ) and Slovenia (http://www.arrs.gov.si/sl/rezultati/06/inc/rezult-vabljena-1-rok-06.pdf  ). It has been mentioned in several media where the name has been translated into German, Croatian, Azeri, or Slovenian language - see for instance http://www.mladina.si/dnevnik/53379/ ). 194.165.113.151 19:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, but the first publication just lists the organization. Though I couldn't find it in the second document, I expect it just lists it like the others. Of the 15,000 google results, there are six unique ones, none of which look particularly helpful. I'm still not seeing it. Perhaps newspaper coverage? By the way, if this is the same person behind the dynamic IP, you should just vote once, as multiple votes aren't counted.--Chaser T 19:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

hehe... no it's not the same person. but it was someone I told about the discussion and he checked the google and post a comment. i just read the deletion guidelines and it says that "the second deletion discussion is not necessary". i guess that means that once the article is deleted it cannot be relisted again? if that's so, then i suggest i delete it myself before it gets deleted by someone else; i will relist it in october when the association is about to publish a book with one of the major publishing houses. i'm sure there will be a lot of media coverages then. would that work for you? however, i still dont understand why an organization that is recognized by such people like Arend Lijphart and Michael Pinto Duschinsky should not be in Wikipedia. Suggest me to delete it and I will. Topjur01 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just let it sit. An admin will get to it and delete it. Feel free to leave me a message at my talk page when that book gets published. If I'm not too busy with class, I'd be happy to help you write an article that complies with all of wikipedia's many policies. Cheers!--Chaser T 20:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like vanity.  --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ORG Eusebeus 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete While the webpage claims to be part of University of Maribor School of Law it is registered to a home in Maribor, according to whois. "European election law association " has 131 yahoo.com hits. Nickieee 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. Macktheknifeau 06:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the starting author of this page. I have checked the guidelines and especially the WP:ORG and I agree that the EURELA does not yet meet the criteria for the Wikipedia. Therefore: Delete. The consensus has been reached. Topjur01 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.