Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Electoral Knowledge Network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested on the grounds that tens of thousands of references canbe found on sites deemed reliable. However, none of the ones cited are of the kind that establishes notability. In GNews, only trivial mentions turned up, and very few of them. Same in GScholar. In GBooks as well, except for the first three hits, which were ads. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A six-digit Alexa ranking usually (but not always) indicates a lack of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While a six-digit Alexa ranking is not impressive for popular topics, no online resource on elections ranks better than aceproject.org. No clue (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - … which is irrelevant when it comes to whether multiple independent reliable sources exist documenting the subject in depth. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that googling ACE can be tricky as it has aparently changed names over time and is often referred to under old or short names ('ACE Project', 'Administration and Cost of Elections', 'Electoral Knowledge Network', 'ACE'). There is also an unrelated commericial website (aceproject.com) for which ads sometimes show up when searching for "ACE".
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) returns over 200 hits in GBooks, over 500 in GScholar and no ads. Still for keep No clue (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. Please cite three of those books that actually document this subject, rather than simply give a URL of a WWW page that has that domain name. Blanchardb reports what xe found when xe actually read the things that Google turned up. You're just counting hits, which are entirely meaningless figures, and not even looking at what the results are. That's not research. Cite sources for your content. Prove to everyone that you didn't just make up this article out of whole cloth. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, based to a considerable extent on the sponsorship--but needs some rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
While DGG's comment carries weight, it'll be appropriate to see consensus clearly. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is clearly notable. However, it needs more content, with references. BlueRobe (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.