Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep.

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines[edit]

More spawn of POV. Snowspinner 06:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Oh my god! Snowspinner is at it again!
Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:36, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, ditto Slowking. - RedWordSmith 06:42, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Go publish these findings someplace else people. This stuff is not encyclopedic. Indrian 07:01, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Anything I had to say on the matter has been said already. Reene (リニ) 07:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion. They failed. Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion. They failed. Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot. I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it... are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon, Adolph Hitler, and Jesus Christ, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:52, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - If the main article is too long, it is the fault of the authors who have zealously faught off attempts to bring it into proper, minor, perspective. -- Netoholic @ 08:45, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!" I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it. It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted. --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Claim this has been listed before appears incorrect [1], and it suffers the same problems as the others. I think you are getting confused because they are being spawned so fast. Securiger 14:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. My comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies,_Florida apply here also. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Randy 16:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Zenyu 17:01, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them." Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I suppose I would have to agree with that to an extent (I did not know, nor did I care to know, that these pages were up for a vote three weeks ago), but the far greater abuse here is the spamming of wikipedia that these articles represent. A good man lost; a bad man won; there were glitches; ok, fine, lets have a page on it for posterity, no problem. Now, the problem comes when a few overzealous partisans with an axe to grind take a minor event in the history of the world (the 2004 presidential election) then take a minor facet of that event (voting irregularities) and write a half dozen subarticles on the topic. In general, if an article is too long, then the article is a poorly constructed mess. The history of nations or world religions or individuals such as Jesus Christ that were so important that they changed the entire course of Western civilization are such massive, complex topics that one article may not be enough. The 2004 election is a footnote in history.

Is this election more important in United States history than the 1876 election, when the fate of Reconstruction, race relations, and the preservation of the Union hung in the balance thanks to a few irregularities and the winner had to live with the name Ruthefraud for the rest of his life? Maybe, I am not the one to make that call, but if that controversy can be covered briefly, then so can this one. What about 1860 when there were not really any irregularities, but the result led to a bloody Civil War? That one certainly seems to have been far more important in United States history, yet it is also covered succinctly. The 1824 eletion, when the winner of the popular vote lost because the other candidates got together to deny him the office, is not even remembered today. This election will be similarly relegated to the backburner of history, making so many articles on the topic seem rather silly. If a writer went to any professionally produced encyclopedia in the world, even one that was online and had no space constraints like wikipedia, with the idea to produce this many articles on this one event, he would be laughed out of the editor's room. If the community of wikipedia users does not have the same response, then I think it reflects poorly on the project and shows the world that instead of trying to create a real encyclopedia we are indulging in petty nitpicking and complaining about every insignificant thing that bothers us when we get up in the morning. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or even an election analysis center. The subarticles do not belong. Indrian 18:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. This has already been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 19:26, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Delete. Wiki is not a blog, historic notability not established. Wyss 19:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. JamesMLane 19:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action. If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing. But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Everyking 20:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization. Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for. Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Keep. Mark Richards 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Deletion is not the correct method for NPOVing articles. Dr Zen 02:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe history won't mark it as important as the 1876 election but the 2004 election was a milestone in US voting history if for nothing more than the widespread adoption of electronic voting machines. An article about the initial controversy surrounding their use is historically important and therefore encyclopedic. Maybe the information can be pared down/merged at a later date with the other articles but for now there seems to be much controversy concerning the election and I would not like to see this information lost. As for POV, it's an article about controversy, thus it's likely to suffer POV problems for some time, have some patience. Intangir 02:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think these pages are informative. If there are concerns about the veracity of particular facts, those concerns should be incorporated, with additional footnotes pointing to those sources. This page is an example of exactly the kind of process which is so important, getting factual information together from various sources, and collating it. It is thrilling to be at a time in history when many people together can contibute to a living history! --Boscobiscotti 03:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Please note this user has contributed only to the VfD pages in question. This makes your vote invalid, Boscobiscotti. Reene (リニ) 03:06, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - Way to pour cold water on somebody's enthusiasm. Everyking 03:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strange and terribly strong keep. Andre (talk) 03:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, it's usual and good practice to break out long articles into subarticles. I agree some trimming could be done, but not at a ratio of 6:1 which is what would be needed to remove the need for sub-pages. Shane King 03:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Honestly! These continual VfDs verge on harassment. The mainpage VfD didn't succeed. Why should VfDs on sub-articles succeed?

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

- Vote is invalid. [2] Reene^✎ 07:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - Rather, vote validity is disputed. [3] Kevin Baas | talk 07:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
    - No, it's not really up for dispute. I've addressed the objections this user has raised concerning this on his talk page as he doesn't seem to quite understand how this sort of thing works (understandable as the user is new). The vote doesn't count. That is really quite simple. Reene ^✎ 07:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree strongly with Dr Zen and Cortonin above. Avenue 05:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is a well-written article, legitimately large and legitimately split. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. On grounds of POV etc. Capitalistroadster 11:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. I'm terribly pissed about the huge amount of unnecessary bolding and italics on all these pages and the POV wording, but those aren't enough to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Guettarda 16:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep All of these pages are going to get cleaned up in time, as the information we have is confirmed or refuted. Until that time, removing it is like saying it isn't there when it is. Josquin 17:35, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep --- While there are many sub-articles the main article would be far too long if they would instead be included there. // Liftarn 19:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:49, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep TalkHard 23:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There's a lot of data here, so it warrants a sub-article. Also see my comments on the main VfD vote PenguiN42 16:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, irrational and abusive VfD again !--Pgreenfinch 18:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
¡ Keep ! -- Ŭalabio 03:25, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Abuse of wikipedia process to drag this into VfD, the sheer size of the articles and controversy surrounding them is evidence enough that the articles are important. If there is some problem with the content, do something to fix it. Stop trying to sweep this under the rug. Pedant 23:35, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
- Calling it abuse doesn't make it so- these are all unnecessary daughter articles to a parent article that is far too large (they only exist for that reason as a matter of fact). The article is the size it is because of bad editing. Stop accusing other people of trying to sweep this virtually nonexistant outside of the blogosphere incident under the rug when there is nothing of the sort happening. Reene^✎ 23:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
  - Similarly please stop accusing other people of prohibiting edits. And various Congressmen, media, advocacy and other groups would call your 'virtually nonexistant (sic)' comment laughable. So we all have an opinion. Except you don't seem to articulate yours except in the negative where this issue is concerned. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:

Comments[edit]

Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before and the VfD for the main article was over weeks ago. Since then the page has grown and changed considerably and has become bloated to the point of absurdity. This is not, however, an excuse to scatter the mess that is this article all over Wikipedia. The issue at hand here is not the main article; for that, go to the appropriate VfD page. The issue at hand is whether or not these subpages need to be deleted. As they've been created as the result of unnecessary bloat and a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree, these need to be put BACK in the main article and cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 21:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Posting this comment on every page is awkward wiki form, but here's my reply.

Again, if you allege that 'a few zealous editors have been preventing anyone...' etc., I'd ask for proof. That kind of behavior is intolerable. Would you like to help to improve the article? Because no-one is prohibited from doing so. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never seen you before, Reene, on any of these pages. Nor have I seen anyone who's contributions were not welcome (Netoholic was on the main page, not the articles in question, and an administrator requested a temporary injunction against him obstruction and rude behavior, not for "cleaning the article".) I looked through the page histories for the articles and the talk pages, and conclude that either a) someone has messed with the page histories, or b) you are blatently lying in order to push a politcal agenda. In either case, there is definitely a serious problem. Kevin Baas | talk 22:32, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

To make it absolutely obvious what is going on with this particular article, here is a list of every user who edited this particular article from its inception until Snowspinner came along and put a vfd on it:

That's it. Not one single attempt has been made by those proposing the deletion to perform a cleanup. Reene has been misinformed; nobody has attempted to prevent anybody performing a cleanup of this article. The sections may have been subject to an edit war prior to being split; I will investigate that possibility also, on the appropriate VfD page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:33, 6 Dec 2004 (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.