Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls

Keep (User: Mvb): Controversy means information, information about meanings that is. Wikipedia is meant to contain information and hence this controversy. The world should have information on how the US citizens think about democracy.

Keep--144.132.235.43 05:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For those of you keeping score at home, why yes, we do have two separate articles on how the exit polls are evidence of voter fraud in the 2004 election. WHY DO YOU ASK? Snowspinner 06:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I see this is the second time you've listed this article. what the heck do you think you're doing? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appears that I am mistaken. The main article got forked and now the subarticle is being listed for deletion. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Everyone, just shut up. You all be quiet. I just hate Republicans who think that Wikipedia should be under their control.
- Fool. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Inc. already owns the Foundation. --Slowking Man 05:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
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 06:56, 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)
Delete. I would like to use this space to send out a hearty thank you to Snowspinner for finding all this junk. Indrian 07:12, 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 07:43, 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 Napolean and Adolph Hitler, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:52, Dec 5, 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 08:28, 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 @ 08:43, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Delete, as before - RedWordSmith 09:29, Dec 5, 2004 (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, 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)
Keep: this has been listed once before!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Claim that this has been VfDed before appears incorrect [1], and same problems as the others. Securiger 14:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The content has been voted on before. The page was split into sub-pages because it was too long as a single piece, as noted by User:Asbestos above and User:RyanFreisling below. if you want to discuss the structure, discuss the structure; whether or not it should be merged. But the content has already been voted on, with an overwhelming majority for keep. Listing the content on VfD again is an abuse, as stated by User:Cortonin above and User:Korath below. Kevin Baas | talk 20:49, 2004 Dec 5 (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]] 15:16, 5 Dec 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 @ 17:19, 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 18:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this election is not more notable, but data is more readily avalible, which leads to a bigger article. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:25, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

The article(s) are big precisely because there were many irregularities with the 2004 U.S. election, though I agree there is much room for improvement. It should also be noted the article is a current event, so half of people's efforts were spent just staying on top of things. Please help us to reduce verbosity where you can. zen master 18:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do thank you for the invitation and want to emphasize that this is a topic that should be covered, just not in so many articles. Unfortunately, I think that my solution, getting rid of most of the graphs and examples and just sticking with the basic facts and how they shaped the results and then eliminating all these subarticles and making them redirects, would be considered vandalism by some of the more zealous here and quickly reverted. Indrian 18:24, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Then why are you voting delete as opposed to move or merge? The need for having the articles on wikipedia in the first place stems from the presence of signicicant election data irregularities, you can't show data irregularities easily in paragraph form. Charts and graphs are needed. Though I agree there is much room for cleanup. zen master 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep Parent article overwhelming survived VfD a couple of weeks ago. These are sub articles with the same, better organized, content. Please see additional voting and comments on the VfD page for voter suppression (ironic). zen master 18:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete Wiki is not a blog Wyss 19:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This has already been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 19:27, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Keep. JamesMLane 20:21, 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 20:55, 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 21:03, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Delete Boring, discredited and repetetive. A2Kafir 23:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mark Richards 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I cannot see any reason for this listing. Is Snowspinner suggesting that there should be a change in policy on subarticles?Dr Zen 02:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The use of exit polls in determining the veracity of elections is an important factor worldwide. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched. If there are concerns about particular facts they should be addressed and incorporated. --Boscobiscotti 03:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. [2] Reene (リニ) 03:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Stupidly 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 03:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Honestly! These numerous 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. [3] Reene^✎ 07:22, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - Rather, vote validity is disputed. [4] Kevin Baas | talk 07:34, 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^✎ 07:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
      - Ultimately, that's for the adminstrator that counts the votes to decide. Said administrator is welcome to follow the link provided and read what you have said. I assume you have no objection to this. Kevin Baas | talk 07:42, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
Keep. I agree strongly with Cortonin above. Avenue 05:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, a garbage POV article from bullshit sources that would take far too much time to clean up for any usefull information. TDC 07:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Needs heavy NPOVing, but any subject that has merited two independent studies from Caltech, Berkeley and MIT is certainly a subject we should have something on. Johnleemk | Talk 10:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cleanup might be possible if it could be done in good faith which I doubt.. Usually, when election results differ from some opinion polls, it is the validity of the poll that is questioned not the legitimacy of the election result. In mainstream opinion, the problem was that the exit polls didn't sample correctly not that the vote was wrong. This article is hopelessly POV. For example, Dick Morris is taken hopelessly out of context: he was stating that the media screwed up the exit polling. Capitalistroadster 11:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The discrepancies between previously reliable polling methods and the results obtained with the use of new technologies deserves airing.Dabbler 16:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Guettarda 16:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep Josquin 17:44, 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 19:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep TalkHard 23:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:23, 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 16:37, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep This merits a seperate article. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
¡ Keep ! -- Ŭalabio 03:19, 2004 Dec 9 (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 @ 22:20, 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 22:31, 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:
- Kevin baas
- User:FT2

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.

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 articles called U.S. presidential election, 2004 and 2004 U.S. presidential election. 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]] 19:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never thought that Wiki was so riven with partisans. The whole VfD tag in the middle of a discussion, on a page that had lost of community involvement - and, if nothing else, on a page that was encyclopedic - seems petty and childish. Edit, argue, flame one another - but VfD the page? Isn't that kinda like taking your marbles home and not letting anyone play because your can't get your way? Guettarda 23:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)