Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klemen Jaklic


 * 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   delete. The reasoning provided by JFHJr and DGG pushes the consensus to delete as they offer the most compelling and policy-based argument, even though the keep/delete votes are numerically similar. It has not been convincingly demonstrated that this individual passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF, despite the walls of text provided here by various SPA's. -Scottywong | babble _ 21:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Klemen Jaklic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:PROF

Criteria for inclusion from WP:PROF
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
 * 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
 * 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Support as nominator The subject in question seems to fail each of these criteria. So far there is nothing to indicate that any sources have found this subject's academic work to be notable. The fact that the subject holds multiple degrees from prestigious universities does also not confer notability unless we have RS reporting on this facet. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep

1.) Venice Commission members are "senior academics, particularly in the fields of constitutional or international law, supreme or constitutional court judges or members of national parliaments". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Commission Klemen Jaklic also referenced there. The Venice Commission and the European Court of Human Rights are two two highest institutions of the Council of Europe. Membership in those requires mention and is one of the highest honors in academia. See membership list (Deans, former Supreme Court Judges, etc).

2.) Harvard Law School, Faculty member http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/handbook-faculty/2011-12/2011-2012-faculty.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)  — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

3.) Author of notable opinions/decisions by this leading body (The Venice Commission) on common european standards in electoral law. See eg http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD(2008)037-e.pdf Mcsngrca (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Mcsngrca — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

4.) Notable public figure. National TV Interviews such as http://www.rtvslo.si/odprtikop/vecerni_gost/ddr-klemen-jaklic/  Mcsngrca (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Venice Commision members are not inheritly notable. In fact they are appointed memmbers and the membership satisfies no criteria in WP:PROF  Where is the published opinion you cite referenced by a RS?  That is what makes this and all academic work notable.
 * There is nothing notable about being on the faculty of Harvard and/or Oxford
 * A single (was it only one?) showing on TV does not make the case for notability. Multiple apperances (with context) would certainly help however.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

His work on democracy won the Harvard 2011 Mancini Prize ("best work in the field of European Law and European legal thought"). https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/#/people/profile/jaklicMcsngrca (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Moreover, national TV interviews and appearances in debates are many and widespread. His appearances also widely discussed. See eg http://blog.kvarkadabra.net/2012/08/neizkoriscen-kapital-slovenije.html or see many more on the web Mcsngrca (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Members of the Venice Commission are no less elected than members of National Academies. In both cases an appointment is made first and, based on that appointment, a vote is taken by the body itself to either confirm or reject membership. Now you can call this either appointment or election, but the process is exactly the same. And the rank as well. There is no higher honor for a European academic in the field of constitutional law. This is well known among legal scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In addition, this is a top academic society of Europe. According to point 6 of the criteria for WP:PROF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF) (see above) a person who is EITHER "elected or appointed" meets this requirement. Mcsngrca (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You also asked for RS regarding the study on the electoral thresholds that Jaklic authored for the Venice Commission. Here you go one RS (out of several): http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=the-venice-commission-favors-3-5-percent-election-threshold-2010-02-16 Mcsngrca (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The key is The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. of which the RS you cite makes no mention.    little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The person is explicitly named as the author of the study of the Venice Commission's official opinion on electoral thresholds in that very opinion (see p 1 of the opinion cited above under point 3.)). The report in the media then specifically refers to, and discusses the importance of, this same opinion by the Commission authored by this person. Therefore, it is this person's research (as the very author of the opinion) that has made that significant impact. Mcsngrca (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Besides, I gave you the example of Mancini Prize ("best work in the field of European law") that was awarded to this person by Harvard University. Cited above. An award by Harvard for the "best work in the field of European Law and Legal thought" in and of itself constitutes proof of "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline". And the Harvard Center for European studies, where this is mentioned (cited above), is a reliable sourceMcsngrca (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The last I checked an award from Harvard is not an an national or international academic award.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Harvard is a global university in its reach, student body, faculty and fields covered, and is officially ranked world's number 1 university. Any award from the top university in the world that is a global player is in and of itself considered an international award of the highest rank.Mcsngrca (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC). In addition, appointment to the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (The Venice Commission) is likewise itself "a highly prestigious academic honor" at the "international level". The Commission is, again, not a national body but a Europe-wide body, actually one of the two highest bodies of the Council of Europe comprising of the most notable academics, former Supreme court judges, Deans, and the like. If this does not qualify then nothing does. Mcsngrca (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There might be a case for the Venice Commission, however it is not an academic society, but an advisory council of a political nature. And once again an award from Harvard, no matter what their standing or global reach does not meet the criteria under WP:PROF

More accurately: "The Venice Commission is composed of “independent experts who have achieved eminence through their experience in democratic institutions or by their contribution to the enhancement of law and political science” (article 2 of the revised Statute)." Mcsngrca (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Mcsngrca. De728631 (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless if the VC is comprised of little green men from Mars, it is not an academic society under WP:PROF, and even if it were, there still needs to be sourcing specfically about this subject's acumen/  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. While appointment to the Venice Commission may not meet the letter of WP:PROF criterion 3, it meets its spirit in that it constitutes recognition that the appointee is considered to have achieved eminence in this field, and also meets criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their [sic] academic capacity." Remember that this is not a bureaucracy, so we follow the spirit, not the letter, of policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF. And the award from Harvard is not a national award, but an award to a student, stating "the Mancini Prize is awarded annually to the student writing the best paper..."  He is considered "local affiliate faculty", not even on the full faculty list.  Jaklic is not listed on the Venice Commission's website as a current member. Hardly notable.  GregJackP   Boomer!   11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to his CV (on file with AALS, Association of American Law Schools) he was the recipient of, among others, the Fulbright Research Scholar Award (national). Mcmlacademic (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcmlacademic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Appointment (past or present) to the Venice Commission itself confirms highest "academic eminence". It constitutes the very recognition of that, otherwise cannot pass their muster. In the leading Slovenian daily (Delo) Jaklic has recently been described as "the most eminent Slovenian legal scholar abroad" http://www.delo.si/mnenja/blog/ne-racunajte-na-nas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.225.120 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)  — 140.247.225.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. This legal scholar is an eminent academic, and this biography should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete — I think the subject falls short of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF. As to the latter, I agree with the reasoning put forth by both Rosetta and GregJack. WP:PROF can't ride on claims in a CV, or WP:INHERIT notability from the Venice Commission alone. I don't see any non-academic impact that's actually significant, either. JFHJr (㊟) 06:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete academic in early stage of a career. Awards are fellowship awards, not senior awards, indicating promise, not accomplishment. The most eminent Slovenian legal scholar would be accomplishment, the most eminent Slovenian legal scholar abroad is not, especially when he has gone abroad for advanced training. The award asserted, the Mancini prized,is an award for student writing. . The emphasis on this is the proof of non-notability. Similarly being  an Affiliate of the Harvard University Center for European Studies is not notability, in contrast to being a Member of the center. The claimed status as a Harvard faculty member is a lectureship for one term, the lowest of the academic ranks, a temporary position, not tenure track or even with any expectation of an eventual tenure tack appointment. Being awarded two law degrees is not notability; it's being a diligent student. Rereading the arguments above, I am beginning to wonder about a possible speedy deletion for G11, promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice CV, but does not meet WP:PROF. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * KeepThe Venice Commission reports that Jaklic was a Fellow of the Justice, Welfare and Economics branch of the Weatherhead center for International Affairs at Harvard University during 2003-2004. This is a highly notable academic group of carefully selected Fellows that was, during that year, lead by its founding director, Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen. Membership in the academic society led by the Nobel Laureate, the Venice Commission membership, the Fulbright (national) award, the fact of holding two PhDs from both top ranked universities (itself a rarity in academic world, and discussed by several RS), and the like, make him, it seems, known by other academics (RS) as “the most prominent Slovenian jurist abroad” http://www.delo.si/mnenja/blog/ne-racunajte-na-nas.html. In my view it is the cumulative effect of the multitude of factors that makes the case for his notability stronger than just a narrow focus on this or that single factor alone, or the focus on non-seniority criterion (though note that the Venice Commission confirms its members are selected from “senior academics” who have gained “eminence”. It might be easy to dispute one criterion, but hard to do away with the cumulative picture for notability. So agree with Phil Bridger (talk): "Remember that this is not a bureaucracy, so we follow the spirit, not the letter, of policies and guidelines". Also, I would feel uncomfortable replacing the Commission's judgment ("emminence", "senior academics") with my own.140.247.225.129 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — 140.247.225.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.