Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Ohio

2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Ohio 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 to keep the article.

As above, relating to 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities, this related page contains the same speculation. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Merge
 * 1) Merge Merge it with the U.S. Electuion Irregularities -Exigentsky


 * DeleteNetoholic @ 20:08, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * As above, Delete. Doesn't need it's own page or a redirect even if the main article is kept. - RedWordSmith 21:06, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a news site. Even the Cleveland Plain Dealer isn't trying to report on these allegations yet.  Let them finish the investigation and then decide if the topic is encyclopedic.  In the meantime, too much of the information is unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 05:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean the article of original research. This is certainly something that has gained national attention. Just monitor this article closely and make sure it stays out of the realm of original research, and within the realm of verifiability.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  20:17, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Kevin Baas | talk 20:25, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * KeepRickK 20:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) *Keep, as above. --Jirate 20:28, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's accepted practice to break articles down when they get too long. Shane King 23:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Ducker 00:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep BlahBlah42 00:07 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep It is appropriate for wikipedia to note the existence of controversies and the issues they involve. While I agree that much work needs to be done on this article (especially in the NPOV area), I think an improved article on the subject would be an appropriate thing for wikipedia to carry. --Mosesklein 00:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Frivolous attempt to discredit the content by adding the VfD tag without valid reasons - Netoholic seems to be playing games and abusing the system. Eric514 01:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to ascribe to me any agenda other than wanting to find out if these sorts of articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 01:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
 * KeepThe controversies certainly exist; even if you personally believe there is no substance to them, only through willful blindness can you believe that the controversies only exist in the minds of a few malcontents whose contentions can be dismissed out of hand. There is no reason to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (originally posted 02:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC), forgot to sign at the time)
 * One of the reasons for making a split is to isolate the POV wars to better allow more minute protections and supervision of controversial pages. I would, of course, support a big-bold warning at the top of each of these pages that explains that it is a topic of controversy and that the Wiki model means that its conclusions are to be regarded as provisional.  That ought to help prevent anyone using us to campaign for or against President Kerry. Geogre 05:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per my comments regarding the general article. func (talk) 08:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the content, move to 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio (capitalization). It's quite possible that, ultimately, the best organization of material about the 2004 election will use daughter articles by subject matter (all the voter registration issues in one article, for example), rather than by state, but for now it's reasonable to keep this article so that people who prefer state-by-state organization can pursue that option. JamesMLane 19:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but as a section of 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities. There will be time to correct all this later. --Wetman 21:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities and redirect. Do not delete.  -Sean Curtin 01:31, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, keep the neutrality/NPOV dispute warning. Some articles I found at CNN.com support the idea there are some controversies.  However, the article does state issues that are under investigation as if they were undisputed facts.  Needs work, deserves to live.  Charm 01:48, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Schnee 00:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * '''Keep""" - Amgine 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting, informative, notable.  If the media isn't covering it, they should.  An encyclopedia covers many events overlooked by the media.  --L33tminion | (talk) 05:19, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.