Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five-point electoral law


 * 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 no consensus. The article is borderline A1, so hopefully someone will add some context before we get back here again.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Five-point electoral law

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. POV. Vanity. All Google hits refer to Wikipedia mirrors. The sole purpose of this article is to spread the claim that the five most important properties of an electoral law were universality, directness, equality, proportionality, and secrecy. I don't consider proportionality that important. But that's not the point. The point is that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Yellowbeard (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: I'm confused by much of this. I'm not even sure what the article is about, but what is the POV? Epthorn (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is a stub, and the alleged POV Yellowbeard asserts is not present in the article. It appears to be a reference to Polish law, or, at least, to Polish political science theory. Given the context in which it is mentioned in the article on the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, it might be better to leave it as a separate article, certainly that is harmless. But it should be edited to make it more clear the origin, and that should be done by someone familiar with Polish political science or law. It is also not "Vanity," and it isn't "discussion," that was a fantasy. Essentially, there is no basis for deletion at all; it is merely a stub needing work. There may be basis for merge. I did run one of the Google searches below through a Polish translator, and, yes, they do show reference to the subject of this article, it appears to be notable, but it would be tedious to try to determine that through the translations.--Abd (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice. Article about elections that are "universal, direct, equal, proportional, anonymous."  Reference given is to a book, apparently collecting essays from Polish dissidents under the former Communist government.  Without context, it's hard to judge the significance of this.  Judging from "what links here", this is apparently a footnote to the article Sejm of the Republic of Poland, and the text may well merge as an endnote to that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable concept in Polish political science . Perhaps the English term is translated incorrectly; if indeed the concept is unknown to English political science this should be made clear in the article - but it should not be deleted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If someone familiar with Polish electoral and parliamentary law were to add even a brief explanation of the concept's significance in Polish law, I would cheerfully change my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrite and add references. Otherwise delete. Visor (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Piotrus.  jj137  ♠  Talk 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM. Visor (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - sounds like a slogan out of Robespierre's times, 1793 France - Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood. And similarily as before, these points have nothing in common with the law practiced today during elections to Polish parliament. In reality, to be put on a ballot, a candidate do the Polish "Sejm" is required only to supply a resume and a party affiliation. No program or statement what he's going to do while in office is neither delivered nor expected. You may say - participation without representation. Once elected to the office, he follows the party (coalition) line: all bills introduced by his party (coalition) are automatically voted "yea", all the other bills introduced by opposition are automatically voted "nay". Sometimes I wonder, what these automatons like Polish senators of the latter days do in English Wikipedia? They're just brain dead pawns, still they're so many. greg park avenue (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is a stub; definitely needs work. Possibly it should be merged. The nominator's contribution history is suspect, see Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard and look at the first day registered. This is apparent sock puppet behavior and more can (and will) be written in the appropriate noticeboards about the significance of those early AfDs. I have no personal attachment to the subject of this AfD, but Yellowbeard has identified many voting systems articles and killed them, often with spurious arguments that may be unrecognized by people unfamiliar with the field, and if no editors who *are* familiar log in and check their watchlist during a sometimes short AfD period, it's history. It takes substantial work, with sometimes relatively obscure voting methods articles, to identify the proper sources, and some, apparently, vote based on shallow research. No blame, but sometimes it takes knowing where to look. --Abd (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment is insulting. You admit that you "have no personal attachment to the subject of this AfD" and that you vote to keep this article only because it is me who nominated this article for deletion. Yellowbeard (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yellowbeard is an experienced Wikipedia editor who registered and immediately began hitting articles with AfDs, showing familiarity with policies and terminology, able to present AfDs with seemingly plausible reasons that can easily convince naive editors. As I said, I have no personal attachment to this article; however, if I saw it as utterly and clearly useless, I'd not have intervened even though Yellowbeard is an SPA sock puppet selectively and extensively removing voting methods articles. "Sock puppet" is not an insult, there are legitimate socks, though they do not normally vote in AfDs and such voting, in fact, is possibly a policy violation. When I have time, I'll make the appropriate Checkuser and other requests -- though anyone can do that, and it would be appreciated, but in the meantime I'm suggesting that depending on evidence presented by a sockpuppet, and not taking steps to ensure that users knowledgeable about the article know that it is happening and intervene if they care, is likely to result in deletion of valuable content, and, in particular, of stubs that might become useful articles. It appears that there is notability for this particular article here, but in Polish. What I care about is not this particular article, but the encyclopedia, and deletion of stubs and other relative obscure articles is causing Wikipedia to bleed, slowly, as editors who created such articles, who do have other lives outside Wikipedia, come back and ask "Where is the article I created, it's gone, and it's not in my Contributions, I'm sure I created it," and, if this happens to them more than once, they conclude that something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia. As to insult, there has to be a person there to be insulted, and "sock puppet" is not an insult. There are some very nice and useful sock puppets on Wikipedia, but they don't go around axing dozens of articles without contributing real editing work. Again, look at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard and see what this sock has done. Sure, he got some articles deleted that deserved it, but quite a few others that did not, and deleting even poor articles can cause damage. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. The article as it stands can be speedied per A1 and A3, no content and no context. But Piotrus makes a valid point that the concept is notable and relevant, and should be included in Wikipedia. If the article is cleaned up, I´m more than willing to !vote keep. A  ecis Brievenbus 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - as much as a dread old AfD's, perhaps this should be re-listed. I'm on the fence and we need an expert opinion before a proper closure can be made. Otherwise, if I were the closing sysop, I'd close with no consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Piotrus, if it can be confirmed that the article relates to what he's linked to. Obviously the article will need work (expert). &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:18, 20 December 2007 (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.