Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida


 * 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. election voting controversies, Florida
Because JESUS GOD whatever would we do without more of these goddamn articles! Snowspinner 06:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whatever would we do without more of these goddamn users!
 * Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. JamesMLane 07:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some of us are trying to create an encyclopedia, and partisan original research spread across multiple articles on purported irregularities in a single U.S. election that did not even have an impact on the results is in no way helping to achieve that goal. Indrian 07:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those in government are likely to be a little more informed than you are, see for example. The article is neither partisan, nor "original research", it's mainstream and of widespread interest.  Please read the relevant wiki pages before misquoting policies. FT2 20:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. - RedWordSmith 07:20, 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 Napoleon, Adolph Hitler, and Jesus Christ, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * How interesting. There is most definitely more than one article about Jesus. Have a nice day. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto Hitler. Ditto Napoleon.  All three people listed are the subject of multiple articles. Napoleon gets at least seven.  There's an article on each of ten members of Hitler's immediate family, one on his death, and one on his medical health, and by no means do I intend this list to be an exhaustive catalog of articles about Hitler. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My mistake, but this does just reinforce the point that multiple articles are reserved for truly important things in world history and not a rather insignificant presidential election. Indrian 17:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The election of a US President is hardly "rather insignificant". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * the world does not revolve around the United States (see Universe)
 * Oh, clever bit of logic there. So what you're in essence saying is that anything that happens in the United States is not important. Fantastic! I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time I read an article about U.S. culture of topics. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, I'll be the first to agree with you. However, this does not mean that the election of a US President is "rather insignificant", which is what was claim.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 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)
 * Merge into the main election controversies article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 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. Did indeed have a previous vote a month ago (which is hardly "constantly"), but most of the keep votes (apart from a few persons who seem to have signed up to WP specifically for this project) were contingent on it being NPOV'ed or cleaned of original research. Nothing like that has happened in a month, and the more articles they manage to spread it over, the less likely it is to happen. There is no real need for so manya rticles; once the original research is trimmed down, it would fit in 32 kB. Securiger 14:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Second inexplicable VfD listing in a row.  If the people pushing for a delete were to expend the energy in NPOV cleanup, this would in my opinion be more useful for Wikipedia.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * keep. Intrigue 15:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Snowspinner is just going around trying to delete factual articles that don't fit into his worldview. Then a bunch of parrots post the same rationale, using the exact same words, for deleting every page. Zenyu 16:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am a Florida voter. I think that my voting concerns and inconsitancies that I have been concerned over were rather accurately addressed in this page. CiaraBeth 17:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into one (large) article about all the voting problems. Dabbler 17:06, 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 18:30, 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 19:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not. But that has nothing to do with the issue, as the articles are clearly encyclopedia articles, not journal entries.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:44, Dec 6, 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. Looking over all these articles, I find myself very impressed by the hard work of whoever has written them, and unable to understand why anyone would want them deleted. Everyking 20:59, 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 21:01, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 21:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Couldn't see a reason for deletion in Snowspinner's ranting. Dr Zen 02:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched.  If there are concerns about particular facts they should be individually addressed and incorporated.   --Boscobiscotti 03:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 03:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unbelievably strong keep. Andre ( talk )A| 03:21, 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)

Rerdavies 04:02, 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?
 * Vote is invalid. Reene&#9998; 07:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather, vote validity is disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:39, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Keep. Avenue 05:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate splitting of legitimate (large) article.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:44, Dec 6, 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 07:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the Democrats thought there was a legitimate case for a recount or other relevant action in Florida, they would have taken legal action same as they did in 2000. The fact that they didn't suggests that there is very little legitimate doubt that Bush won Florida convincingly in 2004. This article fails comprehensively on NPOV. As for the bit about the 268,169 supposedly false votes and the 58,000 missing votes, how do we know this? Capitalistroadster 09:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable information, does not seem to violate What Wikipedia is not. However, this articles needs serious cleaning up. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per my comments on Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 12:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Guettarda 15:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Josquin 17:34, 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 19:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant data into the main article, exit polls, vote suppression, or voting machines. Reasons: 1) These state articles aren't that long, and 2) there's a substantial amount of overlap with the other articles. PenguiN42 16:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 17:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	&#364;alabio 03:29, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Keep Pedant 23:33, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:
 * 1) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 * 2) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * 3) Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression
 * 4) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * 5) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
 * 6) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio


 * 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 (&#12522;&#12491;) 21:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * 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 @ 22:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's see if Reene's comments are correct. She 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 Netoholic came along and put a vfd on it:
 * Kevin baas
 * Neutrality
 * Kizzle
 * Gzornenplatz
 * Alex3917

At that point (November 11) Netoholic called the first vfd on this particular page. Note that Reene's belief that the page had not been vfd'd before is thus disproven.

The decision of the November 11 vfd was to keep the article. Editing continued with the following contributors:


 * Kevin baas
 * 144.189.40.222
 * Alex3917
 * Mirv
 * Michael Hardy
 * 81.153.58.235

At this point Snowspinner called the second vfd (the current one).


 * 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, and it has indeed been vfd'd before.  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)

keep attempting to delete any article in this constellation is an abuse of process, and waste of time. If the article has specific flaws fix them, don't drag 200 users into another vote on this. Pedant 23:15, 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.