Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

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 of the debate was - Keep

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

It's bad enough we have a 70Kb article of PoV about how Bush stole the election. We don't need spinoff articles. Snowspinner 05:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. You're PoV. Did you ever think of that?
Delete. I concur with Snowspinner. The 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article is bad enough, but this is purely insane. Wikipedia is being used by a group of anti-Bush POV-pushers to formulate and promote their crackpot theories about how Bushitler stole the election. This article, as well as the parent, is in flagrant violation of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Even the title is biased; it asserts that voter supression did occur, when little to no hard evidence of organized suppression exists. Some might say, "Fix the article," but, after seeing what happened with 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its VfD, I haven't even tried, knowing that I will be reverted by the article's progenitors. --Slowking Man 06:16, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- I think you're mistaken. The people contributing (and I'm one) are not "anti-Bush POVers". I've ssaid before, if there is credible, serious evidence to suggest that the various matters under official investigation are not in fact accurate, then please contribute it. You need to be aware - there is serious, international and official concern, there appears to be a great deal of informal individual concern, and that these are not the acts of a few individuals but of serious and well informed people. Last, Im not sure how you figure the title as POV... it says there is a controversy, which there is, and that part of that relates to vote suppression, which it does. FT2 21:08, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  - I never stated that everyone who's ever contributed to the article is an anti-Bush POV-pusher. However, major contributions have been made to the article by such people; the article was begun, I believe, by a poster at Democratic Underground, and others from the forum expanded it in its early stages. I'm not denying that an investigation is occuring or that concerns have been raised, but the articles go overboard, mostly with claims based on fuzzy statistics. The title is biased because, as I mentioned earlier, it asserts that voter suppression did occur. A neutral title would be something such as "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (voter suppression allegations)". --Slowking Man 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
    - I think that's redundant. Controversy implies dispute. Voter suppression "reports" or "testimonies", both of which are by nature open to credibility skepticism (and are factual and NPOV terms), might be more appropriate, but is incomplete: the article also contains empirical facts and data. "vote suppression testimonies and empirical facts/data" would be more precise, but too long of a title. And rather unneccessary: the reader need only know that the article is about a controversy regarding vote suppression to determine whether they are interested and to contextualize the content.
    - Regarding "fuzzy statistics": i've never heard this phrase. Does it refer to statistics based on probabilities rather certainties? That is the only form of statistics that I am familiar with. Regarding making "claims", I have been an active contributor to the articles since inception, and I am unaware of any unsubstantiated claims. Mostly, the so-called "claims" are as such: "In Franklin County, precints that had a higher percentage voting Kerry tended to have more active voters per voting machine.", which is an empirical fact, universally verifiable from official data directly from the Ohio state government. In conclusion, I find the phrase "claims based on fuzzy statistics" to be misleading, at best. Kevin Baas | talk 06:43, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
      - To give two examples of what I mean: firstly, the graph of Cuyahoga County voting results shows an upward trendline for Kerry because the x-axis of the graph is ordered in such a way as to create this. The precincts should be arranged by alphabetical order, and a bar graph would be preferable. Secondly, the graph comparing voter turnout to voting machine allocation tells me nothing other than that Bush had a slightly higher voter turnout and that Democratic areas had a slightly smaller average voting machine allocation. The article takes this and claims that the Democratic voter turnout was "suppressed." --Slowking Man 08:12, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
        Okay, flip the x axis around, i don't care, what does it matter? Re bar graphs, alphabetical order: This is a scatter plot, silly. Re:suppressed, no, the article does not make that claim based on the single graph. It makes that claim based on a number of premises that are not stated for brevity because the author has assummed that they would be obvious to the reader. Basicaly, the fact that the number of votes per machine does not change with relation to the number of active voters, shows that to the same degree that they are uncorrelated, either a) they are naturally independant variables, i.e. the active voters were from a different county altogether and would not be voting on the machines in question, or b) the machines were saturated. If b is the case (which I'm sure every sane person will accept), then those precincts where the difference between the active voters per machine and the saturation point was greater had a greater number of active voters who didn't have a corresponding vote registered on the machine; i.e. whose votes were suppressed. (active voters is the mean of the number of voters for the past 4 elections) More significantly and more directly, the machines by law are supposed to be allocated so that that line is flat, not upward or downward slanting. Kevin Baas | talk 17:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

As last time, Delete, uncleanupable. Slowking Man's summary of the situation is about right. - RedWordSmith 06:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep what is POV about it exactly? The articles were spun off because of size from the main article. I don't see any attempt to voice your concerns on any talk pages? titles can be fixed. If there are POV problems with the article then we should also fix that. How can an article about congressional investigation be POV or inappropriate for wikipedia? FT2 and others have debunked the violation of wikipedia policy concerns, most everyone against the election controversies seems uninterested in debate and especially uninterested in debate on how the articles do not violate wikipedia guidelines. Why don't you list your concerns on the talk page or just clean up the parts you find POV? You seem to be aware the parent election controversies article survived VfD overwhelmingly a few weeks ago, I recommend all should read that VfD discussion for pertinent details. What is the point of listing the sub articles here on VfD without any new debate or counter article discussion when the parent already overwhelming survived Vfd, seems like a smear campaign?. Also, why are the sub articles being listed for Vfd in the dark of night on sunday morning? My comments here apply to the 2 other sub election controversy articles you also listed on VfD. zen master 06:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "In the dark of night?" - first of all, Wikipedia is international, so this makes no sense. It may very well be the middle of the day where Snowspinner is. As the timestamps in our signatures indicate, it's just turning to morning in Western Europe. Secondly, it's a five-day process, minimum, why does it matter? - RedWordSmith 06:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- sorry, perhaps I overreacted, but the dark of night comment was also about the lack of any new counter article debate or talk page discussion. This VfD seems to be merely a rehash of losing voters from the parent article Vfd, what is new? I urge anyone with any concerns to put them on the talk page or just fix parts of the article, I think we've done a good job keeping it as NPOV as possible, considering. zen master 06:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with the concerns already stated. Indrian 06:59, 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. Here we go again. Last time around, Wikipedians collectively wasted huge amounts of time because of an inappropriate VfD listing. Now the foolishness resumes. My personal opinion is that the original article, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities, at 89kb, is indeed unwieldy and should ultimately be replaced by shorter articles on specific subjects. The creation of the "vote suppression" article is part of the ongoing process of improving the organization of the articles on the 2004 election. The attempt to delete the original article has already failed, after extensive discussion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy). If the more specific articles are nevertheless deleted, then the main article will just get bigger. There's a significant body of opinion that the 2004 election was characterized by improprieties, including those relating to vote suppression. It's NPOV for Wikipedia to report on that issue. It's the deletion of the material that would in fact be POV. JamesMLane 07:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There have been many election controversies in United States history. Just off the top of my head 1824, 1876, 1960, and 2000 come to mind, yet there are not half a dozen pages examining each election from every angle. There are dozens of countries that have experienced irregular elections right up to the recent Ukraine fiasco, and yet none of these have half a dozen pages reporting on them. A single, concise article highlighting the main controversies and their impact is appropriate. If the main page is too large, it is because the authors of the article have gone overboard in including statistics and examples, and the article should be drastically scaled down. This is an encyclopedia, not an election analysis center. Indrian 07:21, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  - Your argument is that we should identify the similar topic on which our coverage is weakest, and then reduce everything else to that level? By that logic we should remove a lot of information from the Bill Clinton article, which is about twice as long as Thomas Jefferson. The fact is that the English-language Wikipedia tends to have more information about recent events and about events in English-speaking countries. I'd be happy to see Wikipedia offer more information about the Ukrainian election or about the 1876 U.S. election. If such information got to be too much for one article, then the answer would be to have a summary article (the "single, concise article highlighting the main controversies and their impact" that you recommend), but with daughter articles about more specific aspects. For 2004, there's an attempt at such a summary article at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. The information that's now in 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression shouldn't be added to that summary article, because that would clutter it, but shouldn't be lost through deletion. Instead, this and the other daughter articles should be cleaned up as necessary. JamesMLane 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - My arguement is that because this election is recent and controversial a group of disappointed voters have lost all perspective on what is actually important and gone overboard on a minor topic. An encyclopedia is supposed to be concise and on point without too much digression. Wikipedia being an electronic source can include far more information than a paper encyclopedia but should still maintain a proper perspective and, equally important, distance from the topic. Much of this information is pretty good stuff that belongs in a journal article or treatise on voting irregularities in the 2004 election, but not in an encyclopedia. Indrian 19:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
      - Wikipedia should not adhere to all the standards that govern printed encyclopedias. We're online; we can use hyperlinks. The main article on the U.S. presidential election, 2004 can mention claims of irregularities, and link to a summary article. The summary article can give the highlights and link to several more specific articles. A reader who follows the links will read the material, and a reader who doesn't won't. I don't see how this arrangement could fairly be criticized as "too much digression". The question isn't whether a "minor topic" is given too much attention -- would these editors have served Wikipedia better by devoting their time to writing up one of the Chinese emperors who don't even have articles. The issue is whether this particular subject is notable enough to survive VfD. Clearly, it is. JamesMLane 19:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - It's not about politics, it's about fact. If you want to correct POV, do so in edit form! To attribute the existence of this and the related articles to political disappointment is not based on fact. There is a wealth of activity investigating this issue, and the article reflects that. Where are the facts that this is anti-Bush? -- RyanFreisling @ 19:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        I could personally care less which side the articles supported. An encyclopedia is not a place for investigation. Having a page reporting on the results of any investigation into irregularities is fine by me, regardless of which side ends up looking worse as a result, but these findings could be summarized in a more concise manner and without listing every chart and statistic. I did not vote against, nor would I vote against, the main article that spawned all of these subpages, but I feel a half dozen ancillary pages goes to far on this topic. To respond to JamesMLane, I agree with you entirely on principle, the only place you and I disagree is on the use of subpages for this topic; I still think that all it would take was a little editing (ok, maybe a lot, but still managable) to get everything to fit on a single page. The topic is notable enough for inclusion, but sloppy page construction is no excuse to split an article into this many subpages. Indrian 07:34, Dec 6, 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 07:43, 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 07:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- This is not about the original article or the VfD it was subject to. The only reason people seem to be making it about that is because there is no reason these articles should exist. They should be deleted and the parent article needs to be majorly trimmed down. The fact that the parent article has turned into a monster is no reason to go around creating more. It IS, however, a reason to make the parent article better. Reene (リニ) 07:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- If it's not about the original article then why haven't any of the deleters voiced their concerns on the sub article's talk pages? The claim that the article violates wikipedia policy was debunked (by default, no one responded to FT2's counter arguments) in the first VfD. So, I repeat, what has changed? And if the sub articles are different then why did you (Reene) refer to the original VfD for your comments? Please list your problems with the sub articles here or on the sub articles talk pages, I think that would be beneficial for all involved. zen master 08:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This page, and the other subpages, were created in response to the claim that 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy was getting too long. Instead of deleting information, new subpages were created. I think this was a good idea. As Antaeus Feldspar notes above, this information was in an article that was voted to be kept. The information is the same, it was just reorganized into subpages. — Asbestos | Talk 08:29, 5 Dec 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 @ 08:44, 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 11:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Umm... it was split off from the main article because the main article was too large! If you are going to delete it, then I'll readd it to the main article. Then we'll see if it's a wise decision to remove the dratted article! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 5 Dec 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 that article has been voted on before is false. The title is inherently POV. Article is original research (much of it statistically dubious). Claim that several articles are required due to size, is only because it is original research; the poster is trying to fit in all his own analysis and theories instead of citing some independent analyst's summary, which would alleviate POVness and make it all fit in one page. And frankly, it's pretty obvious that this is abusing WP as a private political platform. Securiger 14:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Having read the article and the VfD discussion, I still don't know why it was listed for discussion. If there are POV problems these should be dealt with in the course of the normal editing process. If the name itself is a POV problem, it should be moved to a more suitable name. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm British, and I don't care a jot about America's recent election. I read Wikipedia for entertainment and to better myself, and I vote delete because this article is (a) overlong, (b) impenetrable and (r) poorly-written. It baffles me. The first half, with all the graphs and charts, could easily be shortened to "Some observers (source) noted that the queues at polling stations were longer (source) than similar queues observed during the last election (source). (source) argues that these queues were a result of (factor), (factor), and (factor) - amongst other factors (source) - and that, as a consequence of these factors, (result)". I have no doubt that the rest of it could be similarly shortened, and put somewhere else, and I so rule. - Ashley Pomeroy 15:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So? I'm Australian and I find this article to be interesting! It's not harming you to have an extra page on the 'pedia. I can't understand that objection. Your lack of interest is not a valid reason to delete. I might not be interested in articles about British royals, but I wouldn't vote to delete them based on this. With the overly long article and the impenetrable and poorly written nature of the article: fix it! You might have a point about the graphs, but this is not the place to debate it. Use the talk page of the article itself please. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Look at the next few VfD's Snowspinner is a troll. Zenyu 16:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree with snowspinner's pro-deletion position I have actually found him to be reasonable, especially relatively. Though it is an abuse of VfD for the main election controversy article to be listed again having just recently overwhelmingly survived. zen master 19:29, 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 17:17, 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 18:07, 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)
Delete. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 19:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete and trim down the main article. In an interesting coincidence, this morning's Plain Dealer (the dominant newspaper in Northeast Ohio) has a detailed article debunking each of these arguments. It is very specific about the Ohio-based facts. The author even goes so far as to call them "conspiracy theories". Rossami (talk) 19:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK , this page has serious problems. The reason these pages are so long that they need to be broken off is because of these graphs which, at best, are unclear and prove nothing, and at worst are misleading or downright fraudulent. The first chart attempts to show how instances of long lines happened in the more populous swing states, but since they aren't done per capita, just by total numbers, guess what the result is? The most populous states had the most instances! Florida, Ohio, Goergia, California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania etc. are all the red and orange colored states here. Exactly what one would expect. The next graph is really unclear. Representing these statistics on a line graph is the wrong way to do it. The x-axis contains districts (I guess) within Cuyahoga County, but, being palces, there is no specific order for them to be placed in (unlike if the axis contained, say, numbers), so the person who designed the graph arranged it specifically as a upward sloping line. While the turnout line does go down as the Kerry percentage goes up, it still presents a misleading continuum that would not exist if this were done properly in a series of bar graphs, making it at least POV. Also, since I can't believe that 100% of the people in Brook Park voted for Kerry, it makes me suspect that this graph is done cumulatively, which would be completely bogus. The information here is also not cited. Graph #3 is lacking a title, which is a bit of a problem, because it really could use some explanation. I guess each circle, square, and diamond represent a single voting machine (which isn't exactly clear). I guess "active voter" means someone who had voted recently (as opposed to a "registered voter" who might not have). I guess the "Official Standard" is the approximate number of voters who are susposed to use the machine on election day (and 100 seems rather small to me, it doesn't take that long to vote). All this seems to establish is that all the machines had approximately the same number of voters at them (the pink, flatish line), but areas that had higher "active voters" were places that supported Kerry. If I were a conservative I would assert that this means any long lines at the polling places intimidated Bush's supporters (who all work for a living and had to be at their jobs), while Kerry's supporters (who are all on welfare and have never had a job in their lives) had nothing better to do but wait in line all day. Sure, the assertion is ridiculous, but the facts don't support the view the article's creators have taken any more. And the very fact that the creators have taken a particular view means that this in POV. The next graph is also problematical. Each dot I guess is a voting machine and if he machine voted for Kerry the dot is blue, and red for Bush. Of course, machines don't vote, people do, so the color must be based on how the majority of people voted, which isn't nearly as black and white (or red and blue) as this graph suggests. Likewise the conclusions one derives can be refuted as above. The final graph is also unclear. It has no title and it doesn't explain what the dots are. Are they distrcits? All it seems to say is that, for example, one district where Kerry had 30% of the vote (meaning Bush had nearly 70%) had a substantially higher registration. That would lead up to believe that Bush would win the election, and he did. It does nothing to support claims of malfeasance. So Bush won. Yeah i'm pissed off about it too, but that doesn't mean these pages are encyclopedic, and they are certainly not NPOV. This is a topic that needs a single article that doesn't try to argue a point. This one should just be deleted. -

R. fiend 19:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you would like to dispute the facts, perhaps you should check the facts. The poll results for

Brook Park are readily available. In fact, in five precints, 100% of voters voted for Kerry (including Brook Park), although I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine what's particularly odd about Brook Park's 100% of votes for Kerry. The graphs seem perfectly clear to me. The graph which compares percentage of votes for Kerry against turnout most certainly should not be a bar graph.

- All these articles need a lot of work. The foregoing useful comments by R. fiend are precisely the sort of thing that people should be raising on the talk pages to improve the articles. These comments are not, however, a basis for deletion. JamesMLane 21:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - My basic point, for this one breakout page at least, is that the graphs just shouldn't be here, and once they're gone there's no reason most of what's left can't go in one central article. I didn't vote "merge and redirect" because most of the information should not be merged, though some of it could be, and a redirect is useless as no one would search for this. -R. fiend 22:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Umm, yikes, I don't what to say. Ya, what grade did you get in statistics class? 'Cause I got an A. And as a T.A., if you were in my class, and you just wrote that on a test, I wouldn't give you an A. Kevin Baas | talk 22:22, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
  - I never actaully took statistics, but I know how to read a graph, and I know that the same samples of raw data can be used to back up completely contradictory arguments. This wasn't meant to be an answer on a "test", and I'm not looking to get an "A". I was trying to briefly (not that I succeeded) point out some misleading aspects of the graphs and charts involved in this article. If I made any false assertions please explain them to me on my talk page. -R. fiend 00:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - I good book on the subject is "How to Lie with Statistics". Kevin Baas | talk 00:07, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
Keep. This has already been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 19:29, 2004 Dec 5 (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, but clean up. This (and all similar pages listed below, for that matter) need some serious work, and I hope that someday, it will be no problem to merge them all into one article. But we may as well let the process play itself out before we swing the hatchet of deletion too hard. Lord Bob 20:46, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Fascinating, useful information. People will want to know these things; we must think of the reader. Everyking 20:54, 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 21:00, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Delete. Vast numbers of trumped-up charges do not an encyclopedia article make. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=90&ncid=762&;e=9&u=/ep/20041204/en_bpiep/ohiopapersgettingnowhereonvotefraudallegations A2Kafir 23:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep all. Long articles are supposed to be split up. Delete these articles and you cannot complain at the length of the original! Dr Zen 02:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absurdly strong keep. Andre (talk) 03:19, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched. If there are concerns about particular facts, such as the ones mentioned above those points should be addressed and incorporated, in an attempt to make the article more factual. --Boscobiscotti 03:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. [1] Reene (リニ) 03:47, 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 03:41, 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)

Another invalid vote. [2] -- Reene :: talk 04:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Beg pardon. My vote is valid. See note at [3]. Given that this account was created prior to the call VfD, it's difficult to claim that this is an account created solely for the purposes of voting on a VfD.

Refuted on users' talk page. The vote is still invalid. User has no contributions other than voting on VfD entries. Reene ^✎ 07:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly, the validity of this vote is being disputed. However, it is rather indisputable that the validity of the vote is, empirically speaking, disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:37, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

And just as clearly, the vote doesn't count. It is invalid. It is as if it never existed. Go read up on policy before telling me I'm wrong. Reene ^✎

07:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Having read the policy, as far as I can see, barring an outright fraudulent vote, the only reason I can see for disregarding a vote is sockpuppetting. I note for the record, that I rerdavies assert that this is not a sockpuppet vote, and that edits by the person who owns this acount were made under the ID of 69.199.242.11. I'll leave it to the administrator who counts the votes to decide whether this disputed vote is valid or not. 69.199.242.11 13:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I agree strongly with Dr Zen and Cortonin above. Avenue 05:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The article is well documented and sources are cited. I'm not sure if the last section is legit (testimony from an anonymous Wikipedian who (allegedly) was an election judge), but the article as a whole should be preserved. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. that seems highly suspect and not appropriate for the article, and unattributed, is hearsay... -- RyanFreisling @ 06:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really wish they left their name and some credentials or contact info. In any case, I found the post particularly surprising. Kevin Baas | talk 06:58, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Keep and move to an NPOV name (if possible). Johnleemk | Talk 10:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is of very doubtful merit. If the voter irregularities were so great, why didn't John Kerry and/or the Democrat Party take legal action and complain about it at great length. Kerry had $15 million and lawyers in 50 states ready to take legal action. The fact that he didn't suggests the advice from Democrats and lawyers was that George Bush was fairly and democratically elected with a majority of electoral college votes - he undoubtedly has a clear popular vote majority. The fact that the Democrats and/or the Kerry campaign haven't disputed the election result means that the source of the complaints isn't John Kerry or the Democrats but a few people on the Internet. This greatly reduces the merit of the topic. Nevertheless, there might be merit in having one article providing that it was NPOV and didn't contain original research. This article fails on either ground. In order to be NPOV, the articles should note widespread acceptance of the result by both parties and the fact that the Kerry campaign did not dispute the election. As for alleged voter supression, turnout on both sides was much greater than in recent elections therefore causing the long queues mentioned in the article. Further, as to original research, this article is chock full of it. Capitalistroadster 09:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kerry's non-participation is not at issue. Josquin 17:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Josquin is right in that kerry's participation or non-participation is logically/causually irrelevant to whether or not there were problems with the election. But he is wrong to imply and you are wrong to assume that Kerry is not participating or filing legal action. Kerry is participating and has in fact taken legal action. You could have found this out if you read the article that you voted to delete. Kevin Baas | talk 17:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Keep Guettarda 15:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Josquin 17:42, 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 19:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:28, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. ElBenevolente 23:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep TalkHard 23:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Abuse of Vfd process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:20, 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 16:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 17:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
¡ Keep ! -- Ŭalabio 03:22, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
Keep. The Recycling Troll 06:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Another riddiculous example of a VfD entry by censorship-happy controversy-shy people. --Rebroad 18:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Comments

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) 21:39, 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 @ 22:22, 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)

Reene isn't lying; she said "I understand", which I take as an indication that she's referring to allegations made by others. My opinion is that it's hard to deal with concerns about the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article just because it's so big. An attempt to improve any one point gets lost. Preserving the separate articles will make it easier for other people to help clean them up. JamesMLane 23:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I extend my apologizes to Reene if my invective was misguided. I agree that splitting the article aids clean-up. It definitely alleviates the problems we were having with talk page bloat. More fluent discussion lead to more fluent clean-up. Also, it is reasonable to infer that what holds true for the talk page of the article, holds true for the article. Kevin Baas | talk 23:33, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

If merely organizing the content to make cleanup on the main article easier was your goal, you should have created subpages on the namespace itself (Example: 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities/Exit_polls) instead of brand new articles. Reene (リニ) 02:32, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Subpages are deprecated. Splitting long pages into shorter pages grouped by a suitable organising principle is the recommended best practice. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why? If the intent was to use these pages as a way of organizing the content, cleaning it up, and then re-merging it all into the main page again, I don't see why a subpage wouldn't be the best way to do that. Reene (リニ) 04:03, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such intent, nor would I support an attempt to re-merge the articles. Normally an overlarge article, once split, remains split. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, as one of of the editors who recommended a split, I agree with Tony Sidaway. My view was always that there should be one summary article, along the lines of 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, for the reader who wants a general overview of the controversy, and then more detailed articles on particular aspects, such as vote suppression. That arrangement caters to different readers' different levels of interest. JamesMLane 04:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, nothing else is going to take that title, so there is an advantage to splitting the article in that manner. Not everyone has broadband yet, and large articles have large loadtimes. While I feel that articles should not contain trivia, I feel that legitimate information should not be limited, just organized. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

One of the issues at hand is the fact that the article should not be that big in the first place. If the article was cleaned up, condensed, de-POV'd, had everything from unreliable sources removed (that means taking out...well, most of it), and had some of the content moved to pre-existing pages (like the stuff about Diebold machines) it would be a relatively short but concise page discussing a few notable and reliable controversies surrounding the 2004 US election. Reene ^✎ 06:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Everything in it right now is notable and reliable. These things are all being brought to court. They are all verifiable and corroborated, and they all deal with thousands of votes. I understand that it seems somewhat awkward and that it is difficult to accept that there are so many notable and reliable controversies. It was very difficult to sort through, organize, consolidate, and summarize the deluge of information, and we are still working on it. Fortunately, the flood has settled. Unfortunately, there is much that remains and shall remain unrepresented, but the interested reader can research further via the external links. The articles remain a representative summary. Kevin Baas | talk 06:58, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

That's not how I'm reading it. It goes into way too much detail in places, for one, to be called a "summary". It's drenched in quotations and even some of the issues themselves seem...weak. Also, as someone else has brought up, there are far too many images that either add nothing to the article or are misleading. I don't have the time, patience, resolve, or ample supply of painkillers to even think about diving into it, cleaning it up, and proceeding to deal with what will undoubtedly be several users that are outraged with my changes. I'm sure that is how others feel as well. That does not, however, mean it's fine as it is. I think that's the main issue here. Reene ^✎ 07:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is what puzzles me about this whole series of VfDs. Clearly there are people prepared to spend time editing this article. That you have other things to spend your time on doesn't stop me or somebody else diving in and fixing it (if it's all that bad). The fact that its current content may in your opinion be weak is not a good reason to delete. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But once again, this issue isn't about the main article, it's about whether or not these breakoff articles should exist. I wasn't just blowing steam with my original comment you know ;) Reene ^✎ 08:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying you were. But let's see if your comment is correct. You claimed that "a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree." Let's check that out. 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. You have 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.

It's a shame, I think, that since the vfd was placed and while discussion of this article was ongoing, one user has twice today edited the page to a redirect to an article called U.S. presidential election, 2004. I would have preferred to see the user in question show good faith by waiting for a consensus to be reached. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll clarify where I'm getting that from. Not just from these pages and various talk pages, but the various IRC *cough* "discussions" I was privy to. I seem to recall several users fighting over the article and many revert wars going on (one that stuck out in my mind was an attempt to remove information that was taken from sources that are uncredible, such as blogs and even an image hosting site (???)). This, in part, has given anybody else who may have wished to work on it the impression that such work would be futile (myself included). There are a few specific users I'm referring to here, but I won't give them names. You know who you are. Reene ^✎ 00:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Reene is most likely referring to Netoholic vs a handful of pro-article people, including myself, when we went through a revert war during the early days of the main election controversies article. It is my opinion that Reene irrationally defended Netoholic during that revert war, Netoholic was not subsequently praised for his help "cleaning up" the article but instead was rebuked and given a temporary injunction for his tactics in deleting pages, VfD comments (on other articles as well). As far as the early content and revert war itself goes, it's perfectly acceptable for wikipedia to include references and summaries of third party research, especially elections results criticisms. I agree some of the links and citations early on in the life of the elections controversy article were sketchy at best, but that in no way justifies deleting the article, or even parts of the article, which is what Netoholic and possibly others seemed to be trying to do. It should also be noted Netoholic, Reene and other pro-deleters have seemingly never debated about their concerns with anyone on any of the various talk pages in question. zen master 00:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regards credibility, I can refer you to data at official government websites and the like, i.e. first-hand sources. And I can give you that data compiled in an excel file, and you can double-check and cross-check it as much as you want. You can call your senator and ask him to confirm it, you can go ahead and count the ballots yourself (except volusia county florida, as the originals were destroyed in violation of two federal court orders.) The you can create your own graphs. You can graph the same things that you've seen graphed, and see if they're the same, or you can make your own graphs to show other correlations or anomalies. We invite you. We welcome you. Kevin Baas | talk 01:00, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't defend anybody, unless you call removing personal attacks inserted in arguments against other users from the VfD page "defending". I did that for both sides. I also object to being called a "pro-deleter". Not understanding my stance on an issue isn't an excuse to give it your own misleading name. That said I'm tired of arguing with you. I've explained my statements, I've explained my POV on the issue, I've stated where I drew those POVs from (at least in part), and I'm done with it. Lay bait all you want here and on my talk page, I won't respond. Reene ^✎ 01:09, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Keep there are documented instances of vote suppression, and the fact that the parent article is so huge is merely evidence that we need spinoff articles for subtopics. These articles are some about some of the most impactful current events in the world today. deleting anything but unfactual info from these would be a horrendous tragedy. Pedant 23:09, 2004 Dec 10 (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.