Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities 
 * 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 - kept

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
Yes, this has already been through VfD once. The consensus was to keep and clean up the article. And that would be fine. Except, well, the article got worse. The article spawned seven child articles, the article became a mess of POV and unnotable accusations from blogs and minor media sources. The article didn't fix. Which means that the will of the last VfD wasn't really achieved.

So here we are again. I'd like to see this redirect to the main article on the Presidential election, and for a short summary of the concerns to be there. In two months, if there's anything that turned out to be notable, we can spin this article back off. But right now, this article has turned into the equivalent of listing every person who's ever claimed to be abducted by aliens on Alien Abduction, with spin-off pages for what color they said the aliens were. Except that in two years people will still care about alien abductions, whereas it's dubious whether any of these irregularities or controversies are going to amount to anything at all. Creation of this article was premature, and it's turned into the equivalent of fancruft for politics. Please - merge it for now, and we can spin it back off if any of this amounts to anything more than idle speculation. Or, if we must keep it, can we move it to Wikinews. Snowspinner 08:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note: the decision to keep was overwhelmingly to keep before. See Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy. This is ridiculous. It should be listed on peer review or cleanup, not to VfD! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It was only "overwhelming" when you failed to throw out all of the invalid votes by numerous people who had been pointed to the page by somebody's posting on the forum of a partisan website. And many of the "keep" votes did have extra comments saying that the article was in severe need of cleaning up and de-POVing. The fact that the article has gotten much worse and not better is more proof for the claim that this article cannot possibly become encyclopedic, at least not now. And I've often noticed that while listing an article on cleanup does little, listing an article on VfD will go a long way towards getting it improved. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 03:01, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, then, why don't we just take everything that's listed on Cleanup and propose deleting it? A VfD listing can lead to cleanup of an article that no one has paid attention to, that hasn't been edited much after its initial version, and that was being ignored on the Cleanup list.  This one doesn't meet those criteria.  It was listed for VfD less than a month ago.  Anyone who wanted to help clean it up could have been doing so.  There could be no reasonable expectation that this hasty re-listing would magically produce cleanup that the first one didn't.  The only reasonable expectation, the one I noted as soon as I saw the listing of this group of articles, has already come true: that the multiple listings would cause a huge diversion of effort into the VfD comments, with virtually no benefit to the articles. JamesMLane 05:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, Reene's claim against the previous vote as being "overwhelming" only if you include invalid user's votes is provable to be incorrect from just looking at the previous VfD page I believe. The vote 2 weeks ago was 61+ valid users that voted to keep, and ~6 voted to delete.  10 to 1 is certainly overwhelming in my opinion.  Perhaps Reene is claiming the admin that counted the votes when this article was listed for VfD 2 weeks ago errantly included invalid user's votes?  I think the previous VfD page proves her claim wrong, and I request that Reene defend or withdraw it. zen master 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, I found out about the VfD on a partisan web site - does that mean that after my ~600 edits (including good number of new pages and substantial revisions to articles) my vote here is "invalid"? Guettarda 22:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * All of this material was voted on for deletion last time as one article, and has since been spread among different articles to better handle the volume and complexity of information. Deletion requests were placed for each related article as follows (Cortonin 14:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)):
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * Votes for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2004, exit polls


 * Note: the above seems to me, to be factually inaccurate. The vote was to "keep". I do not recollect it being a vote to keep "contingent on cleanup" or indeed contingent upon anything. The will of the VfD was "keep".  Please check the original VfD. If there is cleanup needed and some people feel this has not been achieved in an appropriate manner, then there is a separate process for that.  But - the article is encyclopedic, of general interest, substantiated by a very large and credible number of sources and as was said before, if a person feels it is not neutral then please add the evidence supporting any alternate point of view - together with the credible sources it draws upon. FT2 21:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have brought this abuse of policy to the attention of the sysops here. Feel free to comment. Kevin Baas | talk 23:24, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Well, gosh, since some of you not-so-nicely demanded I do so, I went through and counted all of the votes, checking contribution histories and tossing out invalid entries as I went (and I used a lot of leeway in favour of potentially invalid entries here). I grouped votes into "Keep", "Keep and Cleanup", or "Merge/Delete". Here's what the numbers have to say:


 * What, in your opinion, constitutes an "invalid entry" in a VfD discussion? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep: 29
 * Keep and Cleanup: 23
 * Delete/Merge: 10

So I stand by my original statement, which was merely a counterpoint to TBSDY's statement (since the casual observer probably wouldn't notice how many votes were invalid; over 33% (that's 1/3) of the votes to be more exact about it). Perhaps now certain people will avoid screaming at me on my talk page calling me a liar, accusing me of "slandering people" and telling me I'm "just WRONG" (complete with excessive bold and italics). They might even (gasp!) apologise for it. Though one can only hope this doesn't spark another flame-fest I suppose. Reene&#9998; 01:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Reene, care to detail each of the "sock puppets"? I seem to remember that new users were counted as sock puppets, which is clearly incorrect and a misinterpratation of the sock puppet policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reene, even by your own count, 52 voted to keep and no more than 10 to delete (I don't know how many voted to merge, but in fact a vote to merge is also a keep vote). There's nothing even approaching a consensus to delete in those figures.Dr Zen 01:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I never said there was a consensus to delete or anything even remotely like that. Please go re-read my original comment that sparked the whole mess. And a vote to "merge" is a vote to delete the article and put the content (in whole or part) somewhere else. VfD is about deleting the article, not the content. In that respect, a "merge" vote is as good as a vote to delete (even if the content is preserved elsewhere). Reene&#9998; 01:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is even a 5 to 1 vote according to your numbers against deletion is actually "overwhelming" against deletion when consensus is required. Also, the main point is that "clean up" or "need for de-POVing" is absolutely not an excuse for (multiple) VfD listings.  And I wonder if Reene will now provide evidence for her most recent claim that the article has gotten worse since the first VfD?  I think if we had a new vote on just that question it would come back overwhelming that the article is an order of magnitude improved.  Listing for VfD has been an impediment towards cleaning up the article actually, because 99% of the clean up has come from keep folks.  Wasting time on VfD detracts from article clean up, which may have been the plan, repeatedly.  zen master 02:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Overwhelming" is highly subjective as well as being slightly misleading when you consider how many of the votes were invalid; pointing this out was the intent of my original comment which you blew completely out of proportion to the extent of accusing me of "slandering" people. It is my opinion that the article has gotten worse, and I am far from the only one that shares this opinion, though I notice you're not pressing others for "evidence". You're just picking at me because you're pissed off at me, possibly because I've openly disagreed with you in the past and possibly because I told you to stop bothering me, first on IRC and then on my talk page. Though I am intensely curious as to whether or not you harass others like this. You see, despite your apparent belief, nobody has to justify themselves to you no matter how many times you press them about an issue and no matter what outlandish thing you accuse them of. Last I checked you're not a sysop and even if you were that wouldn't give you permission to do what you've been doing. You need to start treating other users as equals deserving of the most basic respect, not as inferiors that you can boss around and harass into doing what you want. Reene&#9998; 02:32, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nope, I just repeatedly request evidence from you since you seem to make a new claim with each post rather than logically address previous claim(s). You may not be alone (with 6 or 10 people) in thinking the article has gotten worse, but that is not consensus as we've already discovered.  Just because I point out shortcomings in your argument(s) does not mean I am harassing you.  I was not the one that ever attempted to boss you around, I will be ok if you simply ignore my counter points.  The rhetoric you use here and elsewhere makes one wonder how you ever became a sysop. zen master 03:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You're certainly welcome to your perception of the situation no matter how skewed or incorrect it may be. I've also never seen any "counter arguments" from you, merely demands that I "justify" my position. I also find your continued demonstration of the fact that you are woefully misinformed about a variety of topics highly amusing. Keep it up. Reene&#9998; 03:17, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, you make accusations while I point to specifics, which are page histories and your previous comments. It looks like this article will overwhelmingly survive Vfd yet again, so what is your point about my being woefully misinformed exactly?  Is it possible you are?  I welcome specific debate and discussion but generally dislike rhetoric and accusation -- it seems we disagree on that too. zen master 03:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Alright you two, kiss and make up. we're all on the same side. --kizzle 10:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think we are.  Relisting this article for deletion after the first VfD failed miserably is, as many people have pointed out here, clear harrasment, censorship, vandalism, and/or trolling.  Reene's attempt to deny that 61 votes to keep vs 10 votes to delete in the original VfD was an "overwhelming" vote to keep this article, is an attempt at revisionism.  I don't consider vandals, trolls, censors and revisionists to be on my "side".  Do you?  noosphere 13:03, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I daresay kizzle intended to say that we are all attempting to build a good encyclopedia (though even that is questionable). What the frell is a "revisionist" exactly? You folks are coming up with new categories to lump dissenters into all the time, I just can't keep up. And for what I hope will be the last time, I said "overwhelming" is not only subjective but slightly misleading considering the number of votes that were invalid (something a casual observer wouldn't notice as easily) and how many of the keep votes (roughly half) stated in no uncertain terms that the article was in bad shape and needed cleanup. Reene&#9998; 14:08, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Reene, I have seen you repeatedly claim that some contributions to the original VfD threads on these articles were "invalid votes". Do you not recognise that this statement is somewhat inflammatory? I think one of the problems I've had with your interventions on these threads is that your claims are often inflammatory and often turn out, on investigation, to be false.  You falsely claimed that some of the articles up for VfD had not been up for VfD before.  You falsely claimed that people had attempted to perform cleanup on some of the articles but had been prevented from doing so. Now I suspect that your claims that some contributors to the opposition to the original VfDs were "invalid votes" may wel turn out to be equally false. There seems to be a pattern in your claims: that they are often false, often inflammatory, and sometimes both.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not "inflammatory" to point out invalid votes as I see them. I've asked other admins about this and they've all agreed it's perfectly acceptable and even encouraged. Also, I didn't "falsely" claim anything. Hubub over things I've said has resulted due to either a misunderstanding/misinterpreting/misreading of my words or a completely false allegation from another user based on Gods only know what. Your first claim, that I falsely claimed some articles up for vfd hadn't been up before, isn't a false claim at all; The articles in question are all sub-pages that had just been created, and no, those articles have never been up for VfD before. Your second claim, that I "claimed people had attempted to perform cleanup on some of the articles but had been prevented from doing so", was not something I ever claimed at all. I said I understood this had been happening, and as other users pointed out in my defense when people leaped on me for it, this means these are merely allegations that I have heard from other users (and I later explained this, as well as saying that I did witness this happening once between two users). Lastly, yes, about 33% of the votes (at least) of the last VfD were invalid for various reasons, and I would encourage you to go take a look; many of them are plainly obvious by the fact that they're either from anons or people who voted or maybe edited the page in question once or twice and never came back. If you have proof to the contrary of any of these I would encourage you to put up or shut up. The only one making "inflammatory" and plainly false comments here is you. Reene&#9998; 14:30, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's take your false claims one by one:
 * * "Your first claim, that I falsely claimed some articles up for vfd hadn't been up before, isn't a false claim at all; The articles in question are all sub-pages that had just been created, and no, those articles have never been up for VfD before."
 * I draw your attention to the Ohio article. Its first VfD was called by Netoholic on 11th November.  Its second VfD was called by Snowspinner on 5th December.  And the Florida article: same thing.  Netoholic 11th November, and Snowspinner 5th December.
 * Your second claim:
 * * "I said I understood this had been happening, and as other users pointed out in my defense when people leaped on me for it."
 * Accepted, your second false claim, which was false, amounted to heresay. There is no need to attempt to equivocate, let us simply acknowledge that it was false and you were not aware at the time that it was false.
 * Now you repeat a claim that I'm beginning to find annoying because you fail to back it up adequately: "Lastly, yes, about 33% of the votes (at least) of the last VfD were invalid for various reasons" Yet the reasons you cite are "they're either from anons or people who voted or maybe edited the page in question once or twice and never came back."  Failure to "come back" does not make a VfD comment invalid.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course the other three or so articles in question are completely irrelevant. ;) A similar article under what I believe was a different title was merged, as I recall, and the original page redirected. Of course I may be mistaken on this point as I didn't keep up with the pages in question (I don't even recall seeing the VfD notes on them). Also, calling my stating I'd heard other users saying something (on the very same page as a matter of fact) "hearsay" is quite rich as you yourself are technically guilty of the same thing as well. I also don't believe it was false, as I just repeated above, I did notice one specific conflict between users. One was not allowing the other to remove highly dubious "data" from the page, probably for personal reasons as they were engaged in a grudge match at the time. I notice that one relented...eventually. I've also backed up my claim that there were invalid votes quite well. I'm quite tired of people demanding I back up every single little thing I say without backing up anything themselves. It's annoying and asinine. And yes, editing an article and voting on that same article's VfD does invalidate ones' vote. I suggest you read up on the policy concerning this issue before you go around telling people they are wrong. Reene&#9998; 15:32, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * You write:
 * * Of course the other three or so articles in question are completely irrelevant. ;)
 * Your specific claim was: "Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before". The emphasis on none was yours. Since three of them, the main article included, had been up for VfD a little over three weeks previously, your statement was categorically false.  Since you've admitted that you spoke out of ignorance in your false claim on people refusing to permit cleanup, why not simply admit that here also you spoke out of ignorance?
 * * Also, calling my stating I'd heard other users saying something
 * It was a little more than that. You used this factoid, which you "understood" to be true, to argue for the deletion of an article.
 * * you yourself are technically guilty of the same thing as well
 * When you're in a hole, stop digging.
 * * I also don't believe it was false
 * Even if the incident you describe is true, it does not support your claim that there were "a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree." Tussles over editing that are eventually resolved are commonplace on Wikipedia and have never, ever been grounds for deletion of a page.
 * * I've also backed up my claim that there were invalid votes quite well.
 * It's a very, very serious claim. You have not backed it up.
 * * And yes, editing an article and voting on that same article's VfD does invalidate ones' vote.
 * Piling on false claim after false claim cannot help your case. And I note that you're trying to change your argument now.  Earlier it was that comments made were "anonymous" or made by people "who voted or maybe edited the page in question once or twice and never came back". The policy says that sock puppet and troll votes may be discounted--the most you can do about any vote is to mark your concern that a vote may be one other other.  Categorical statements of the kind you have made are not justifiable. I will confine any further comment on this matter to your talk page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually my comment was put there mainly to draw attention to the fact that they were sub pages of another massive article and that voting for them wasn't the same thing as voting for the main article (since several people voting "keep" seemed to be under this false impression). The main article isn't a sub-page by the way. It's the parent. And I do still believe the previous articles were under a different name, but since I'm tired of providing evidence and you don't wish to provide any yourself I suppose we will agree to disagree.
 * Repeatedly stating that something is a "false claim" when it isn't and has been proved otherwise is not helping you. Perhaps you think if you keep saying these things they will become true, or that other people will begin to believe you to whatever end that will accomplish. It doesn't matter how many times I clarify and prove myself does it? Because as has been repeatedly demonstrated, someone will always find something to nitpick at, no matter how ill-founded that nitpick is. After all, what does it matter if I have policy, logs, cites, an the words of several well-respected users and sysops backing my statements up if there is one person that is wanting to lump all of that into "false claims" because they don't like it or don't agree with it. With that, I'm through arguing with you. May I ask that you not drag this to my talk page? I don't need this mess cluttering it up and I was wanting to archive it tonight anyway. Reene&#9998; 17:32, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly stating that something is a "false claim" when it isn't and has been proved otherwise is not helping you.  I will leave others to make the judgement on whether your claims are false. I have presented ample evidence, and I have no further comments.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Everyone, lets all take a deep breath. I'm sure we have other things going in our lives such as jobs, significant others, family, and the general day-to-day things which affect us.  Let us keep this in perspective when we are talking about editing an article on an online encyclopedia, wikipedia is not the answer to life so don't let it bother you so incredibly much.  People need to calm down, regroup their thoughts, and not assume bad faith just because someone disagrees with you.  So Reene thinks there are invalid votes.  Let us analyze the situation without crying "inflammatory" or "you god-damn son of a bitch" (that last one was made-up, just so no one jumps on me)... While my personal feelings of this relisting lean towards the extremely smelly on the bullshit-o-meter, that is my personal opinion, so I vote Keep.... OK.  Done.  No more.  Life goes on.  People need to take this a little less seriously and realize we're all trying to build a better encyclopedia even though we may not always agree on it.  We have a rule on Wikipedia for the ability to vote, whether or not someone who edits NAMBLA all day comes in and wants this page to be deleted or not deleted, if they meet the 100 edit requirement, ok, they can vote.  No more discussion about zealots and the wiki-tribe (or "cabal", one of my favorite terms) that gallavants page-to-page, or about inflammatory sentences... that is all fluff for what we must consider to be the heart of the matter, the disagreement of facts themselves.  State your arguments.  Do you think in philosophical discussions, Hume was like "You piece of shit! How dare you think we know anything for sure when we merely have seen it occur once?  What are you, a sissy?  Stop spreading patently false arguments you zealot!"  Well maybe he was, but that doesn't give us the right to do the same thing.


 * Take a deep breathe. Then simply disagree.  Don't take it personally.  --kizzle 02:45, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

discussion about the article instead of about the previous votes
The 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article is constantly being added and removed from the Current_events' ongoing events section. Should it be in there or not? I invite you to discuss this here. --Jpkoester1 14:58, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

votes

 * Keep Jacob
 * Keep. Keep this page.  9:16 pm, Central Time, 12/7/2004.
 * Keep. The page is excellent.  Keep it.
 * Keep. Deletionists aren't neutral.
 * Keep sigh, all deleters are welcome to help clean up the article(s) and/or to voice their concerns on talk pages. zen master 08:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Snowspinner is right... a certain few editors have managed to completely overtake management of this article; working on it and the related ones to the exclusion of everything else. They "solicite" help in fixing it and "offer" to listen to advice, but revert every change which would put this article into appropriate perspective.  -- Netoholic @ 08:38, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Hi Netoholic. Could you give a reference to the history list to back up your claim that "they revert every change that would put this article into appropriate perspective"?  On an admittedly cursory search, I was unable to verify this claim.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. People agreed to keep the article and work on it, then the article got worse, so we delete it? If the original article was good enough to keep, then the fact that this is no longer as good can hardly mean it should be deleted, it means that it should be fixed. A vote for deletion implies that the article should not exist, yet we've already been through that once.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 08:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, same vote as last time, same reason. - RedWordSmith 09:34, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if editors are resisting the effort to make it NPOV then there should be some official way to reign the editors in. Deleting the article probably isn't the best way to do that. But then we have another problem: The name of the article is inherently biased. It should either end with just "controversy" or, if "irregularities" has to be in the title, the word "alleged" should be in front of it. So my vote is to Delete this one and have one at a NPOV title, and then slap the article with a big NPOV tag until someone can get it rewritten so that even the critics of the page can agree that it is phrased objectively and follows encyclopedia format. Any editor removing the NPOV tag before concensus is reached should get temporarily banned and worse if they repeat. DreamGuy 11:35, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * If there is evidence that there were not irregularities, that the House and other bodies have not taken it seriously, that it is not of general interest, then add it. People working on this article have waited for evidence to be added in accordance with WP:NPOV to show other sides if any are omitted.  They have added in riders if evidence seems dubious. But you know what?  When you ask the folks who say it's just a bunch of air to add supportive sourced information to evidence it, as opposed to just claim an opinion, they haven't yet come up with the goods. FT2 07:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh for goodness sake. Keep the bloody thing will you? Just because an article isn't NPOV or is difficult doesn't mean we should delete it. Heck, if we did this then we'd have to remove ALL the blasted Arab-Israeli articles!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent point Guettarda 13:49, 8 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)
 * What TBSDY said. Keep. At the very least we need to mention what all those bloody blogs were ranting about, since they usually don't stir up such a huge fart (and in unison, what's more) about any old thing. Johnleemk | Talk 13:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 15:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My comments on Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Florida apply here also. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and send for cleanup. --Randy 16:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to wikinews.
 * Keep. Relisting it here so soon, clearly just to keep the  tag permanently at the top of the page, is abusive beyond words.  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." Korath 16:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some controversies, like Florida in 2000 or Ukraine this year, can undoubtedly sustain their own pages. However, there's no indication that this can be the same. Merge relevant material back into the main election page and redirect. Compare the attention paid to Florida with the attention paid this year. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:04, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Compare the problems in Florida in 2000 to the problems this year. Kevin Baas | talk 22:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Well, in Florida, as of today's date, we didn't know who the next President would be. This year, we do. Thus, Florida's were automatically more notable, as they had a larger impact. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The subject is the integrity of the election process, not the outcome of the election. Kevin Baas | talk 23:00, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Which is more important - who the president is for one limited 4 year period, or whether there is evidence suggesting the swing states and others were rigged in a manner capable of repetition but it wasn't nice to say so? FT2 07:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can someone ban Snowspinner the troll? Block his IP? Tell his owner to keep him on a short leash? Zenyu 17:08, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. KEEP FOR ALL RELATED PAGES. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO VOTE INDIVIDUALLY ON EACH SUBPAGE. No one is libeled, nothing is alleged or asserted. Everything I see when I read this admittedly bloated, poorly-focused article is factual, based in fact, or reports of alleged fact from independent sources. I notice despite the VfD, there is _NO talk about this on the article's talk page from those bringing these complaints_, whether 'Snowspinner' or others who have added this or recent neutrality tags, to try to improve the article. No attempt was made by them to participate in improving the article... and so I am forced to concluded that their motives and behavior are far more political in intent than 'snowspinner' alleges this article to be. In this piece (which needs, and is receiving, ongoing improvement), no misconceptions are put forward, no accusations are made. Folks, why not contribute? Why not edit, and add, and discuss? Why censor? Because it's easier. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This re-listing is abuse of VfD.  Diversion of energy to coping with multiple VfD listings will hinder, not help, effort to present suitably encyclopedic coverage of this subject area. JamesMLane 18:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Snowspinner. This information should be a short chapter in a general article on the 2004 election, this material needs to be NPOVed, cleaned up, and protected, like the articles on Bush and Kerry were.  It is nothing more than a rant right now, and the people who continue to make it a rant should be ashamed of themselves &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please point out all areas of the article that are POV "rants" and we will clean them up. I think we've done a very good job at POV considering the topic, I am not ashamed. zen master 18:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If people take issue on particular facts, we need a debate on the veracity of those facts...--Boscobiscotti 02:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)--Boscobiscotti 08:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously topheavy on PoV. Wiki is not a blog. - Wyss 18:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup.Martg76 19:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has already been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 19:31, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. Duh. All quite notable and important information. Everyking 20:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action.  If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing.  But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does this really need to be separate from the main article about the elections? The way it's setup right now is perfect breeding grounds for POV. ~ Wikiacc 20:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has improved tremendously. The wording is much better.  The organization of the article is much better.  The real problem is that since the original VfD there have been an incredible number of new developments.  Incorporating them while improving the wording and layout of the article simultaneously is difficult.  New categories and headings for the new developments have had to be created, the new developments incorporated and then revised and reworded.  Once the rate of new developments settle down and the page becomes otherwise mostly static, then the editors can concentrate on finding the optimal organization, wording and layout for the article.  That's when you'll see the really dramatic improvements.  Until then, let's make this the final VfD, please!  noosphere 20:47, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is not even a plausible pretext to throw this back onto VfD so soon, it's just a way for those who didn't like the results they got from that vote to try and overturn it.  (Hmmmm, in addition to my deja vu, I'm also experiencing a strong sense of irony...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't even close to NPOV, and as was stated earlier the title itself is not NPOV either. -- RichBlinne 21:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is turning out to be a rather controversial subject, wouldn't you say? Kevin Baas | talk
 * It is not the controversial nature with which I have a problem. I have dealt with NPOV on religious doctrine pages and this issue resembles a religious debate more than other categories. NPOV is dealt within the religious realm by giving multiple POVs. That would be a solution here, but I see no evidence that alternate POVs are being discussed. My other main beef is with the style of language, namely such things as some people say. Attributed quotes along with reasons why the person quoted would be credible are absolutely necessary here. RichBlinne 04:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I keep asking for those who feel its non neutral to comply with NPOV policy and add sourced information if they feel that some point of view is missing. And you know, apart from generic personal claims, I keep not seeing it. FT2 07:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There might be a few problems with point of view, but the fact remains that this is just about the ONLY comprehensive article on the Internet covering this story - the major news sources haven't even mentioned it!  Clean it up a little, but deleting the article is ALSO not NPOV - the fact that the article would be deleted means that someone is trying to hide the conversy.  --Quintin3265 21:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "the major news sources haven't even mentioned it" - this is exactly why it DOES NOT belong on Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopedia, not a vehicle with which to push your political agenda. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 21:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the logic here. Kevin Baas | talk 21:52, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC) Whether or not the major news sources are reporting this does not determine whether or not the events are significant.  It is agreed by all that "This is an Encyclopedia, not a vehicle with which to push [a] political agenda."  Political agenda cannot be forwarded - or "pushed", as you say - by telling the truth.  On the contrary, suppression and deception are the vehicles by which political agenda are pushed, albeit  unwittingly at times.  Pushing a political agenda is a form of sociological war, and as Sun Tzu says, "war is all about deception".  Reporting of factual, neutral, and significant information is not a "political agenda", unless telling the truth is a revolutionary act, in which case we have much bigger problems to deal with. Kevin Baas | talk 22:06, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * This has obviously been covered a great deal in certain media, and the lack of corresponding coverage in other media is an interesting part of the controversy. The media coverage or lack thereof isn't the issue, but it's an issue. A real, actual, reality-based, factual issue. For this very tension point alone, one could argue that this article should rightly exist. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. I voted to merge before. The article has just gotten worse since then but there are still a few shreds that can be recovered and put into the main election article. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 21:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:04, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Yes, there is duplication and redundancy between these pages, but VfD is not the best way to fix that.  (I'm not going to even start on Spowspinner's likening of the US presidency to alien abductions...)  -Sean Curtin 23:36, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. zoney &#09827; talk 00:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listing this again is the worst kind of trolling. The "will" of the last VfD was to keep the article and it was kept. If editors disagree with the article's content they have a perfect means of fixing it: edit it.Dr Zen 02:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. am editing this page to vote, not sure how else to do it. I worked on this page and I want it kept.
 * Note that this user has only one contribution and that is to this page. This makes your vote invalid, Boscobiscotti. Sorry. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 02:48, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah Reene,I see you have erased my vote. (talk about vote supression :) :) In fact I made 4 legitimate edits to this page a few days ago before I was registered as a user.  I returned to do additional edits to clean up the page and add additional footnotes, and found it was potentially going to be deleted. I did the edits as an anonymous user.  they are listed here IANAT (I am not a troll:)
 * I did not erase your vote. I pointed out the fact that it is invalid. I would encourage you to read your talk page as well as this to learn why your vote is invalid. It's been explained thoroughly. Do not make a huge issue out of this. Reene&#9998; 08:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * ok I read that page too. I read "administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" votes include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." I do not think that my vote to Keep was made in bad faith. My vote was not made anonymously, and yes, my only edits are to the page being considered, but I think a review of my edits will show that  I made responsible edits which clarified language and added attributions.  (something which is being complained about by those who desire to delete) So then you are an administrator, and are therefore choosing to disregard my vote?  The language says "can" not must... I am making an issue of it because I feel that the wikipedia is just the right kind of place for an article like this...   It is important information and the wikipedia will force the info to be held to a higher standard than the blogosphere will.--Boscobiscotti 08:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Interpret "can" as "probably will be". I've asked others about this, among them prominent administrators, and they've agreed that this is one of those cases where the vote is dismissed as invalid. In any case, all I did was point out the fact that the vote is invalid in an attempt to make it easier for the admin counting the votes. The links are there, and if you're so confident, why bother arguing about it? I'm certainly finished debating the issue. Reene&#9998; 08:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey Reene! 1)I apologize for assuming you were invalidating my vote. Perhaps you can understand how your language led me to that conclusion? 2) I suggest that next time you "challenge" someone's vote you use more accurate language. (Such as j'accuse! :) :) It is more accurate to state that it is your own POV. IE "I dont think this should be counted" or "In my opinion this is not a valid vote." rather than "It is invalid"--Boscobiscotti 18:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Protect if necessary, but "the article got worse" isn't a valid reason for deletion. &mdash; A.M. 02:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of merits, articles shouldn't be relisted so soon. Take your sour grapes elsewhere. Shane King 03:33, 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?
 * Because subpages are seperate articles, and because it's not unimaginable that some people might be opposed to the continued spread of this leviathan.
 * Vote is invalid. Reene&#9998; 07:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather, vote validity is disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:33, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really up for dispute. I've addressed the objections this user has raised concerning this on his talk page as he doesn't seem to quite understand how this sort of thing works (understandable as the user is new). The vote doesn't count. That is really quite simple. Reene&#9998; 07:41, 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.  On a side note, I'm already sick of reduplicting my comments! (I'll just post them here, from now on.) Why couldn't the VfD poster list these all under one heading, or better yet, accept the outcome of the prior vote; the standing decision of the overwhelming majority to keep this information in wikipedia?  This is all rather annoying. Kevin Baas | talk 07:47, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you'll check Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators, you'll see that this vote will likely not be counted. I was merely bringing this users' contributions list to light: it makes it easier for the admin counting votes. Reene&#9998; 08:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Reene, you can clearly see that there is no consensus for deleting any of these articles. Even if you do find an admin who is willing to interpret the policy broadly enough to disqualify half the voters and claim there is a consensus, the outcome is likely to be the re-creation of the articles because "consensus" is not the same thing as "qualified majority" (and whoever considers that a two-thirds majority counts as "consensus" clearly doesn't understand that wikis are about common consent, not the imposition of the will of the majority). When a lot of editors oppose deletion, there cannot be consensus. Dr Zen 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge the few things worth mentioning into U.S. presidential election, 2004 and redirect this. It's become a sinkhole of POV and bloat. See my vote at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression for more analysis of these articles. --Slowking Man 04:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the article isn't perfect, but multiple VfD requests are not a constructive approach to fixing this. Avenue 05:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's one of the pages I check every day, hoping... --Aram&#1379;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1377;&#1398;&#1379;a|  06:29, 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 06:53, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Settle down kids.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It would have been reasonable to have an article if it had followed NPOV and taken all sides of the argument into account. Most reasonable people accept that George W. Bush won the US election with the most votes ever for a candidate for president and was the first candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since his father in 1988.
 * Can we have a citation for the Weasel words "Most reasonable people accept..."? Which exact experts and organisations are you saying are "unreasonable"? Especially, this is an article on voting irregularities, even if the result were correct (which it may be) I'm not aware that "most reasonable people" accept that voting irregularities when reported and investigated on this scale are not important enough to be in the encyclopedia, together with the reasons why. FT2
 * Compare and contrast this with the 2000 Presidential Election where there law suits flying everywhere? That was because that was a close election. Or contrast it with events in the Ukraine where there is a great deal of passion on both sides and the opposition is convinced that it won? I see no such convictions amongst the Democrats.
 * If I was a person working for Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encarta, I would show people this page and say that it is a prime example of why you can't trust Wikipedia because it is prone to get captured by advocates of a particular POV. We have worked hard to build a comprehensive encyclopedia (some would say too comprehensive in certain areas). However, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia had a lot of articles but only ever presented one Point of View which meant that it wasn't considered reliable. Do we want to be considered as the Indymedia version of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia?
 * We should delete this article for now and revisit it in a few months when people can settle down and accept what has obviously been a disappointing experience for Kerry supporters. Given that the outcome of the election is reasonably clear, there is no reason to have this article, expecially when it contradicts everything Wikipedia is supposed to stand for in terms of NPOV? Capitalistroadster 11:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary, I show this article to people as an example of the value of Wikipedia. Information can be presented and accumulated regardless of whether or not people want to hear it, and regardless of whether or not it is in the interest of the gatekeepers.  And this information can be collectively worked on by the interested parties until accuracy is achieved which surpasses other sources.  This page is an example of that.
 * I see a number of complaints above from people who say that there is no balanced POV in this article, but I only see two POV's being discussed here. One is that the facts point to significant irregularities and problems with the election, and the second is that the facts should be ignored.  If you want to ignore the information presented, then don't read it.  But that shouldn't result in a deletion.  If there are alternate interpretations or counter information, then ADD it.  I've checked the edit history, I don't see any record of people having added evidence that there weren't irregularities.  So if all of the people on here with strong opinions that there's another POV being ignored would post evidence for that POV, perhaps the problem would be solved.  --Cortonin 14:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There are some instances of "people having added evidence that there weren't irregularities." For example, one explanation for the exit poll discrepancies is that the machines were rigged, but an alternative explanation is that Kerry supporters were more willing to talk with exit pollsters.  That seems fishy to me.  Nevertheless, the head of the NEP endorsed that view, so I added his quotation.  In general, these articles still need more NPOVing.  I would welcome constructive editing toward that goal.  A VfD listing is not the answer, though. JamesMLane 19:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep - this article is of major public interest and presents the issues in an unbiased way. It can be edited as it evolves - Andrew Waldie
 * Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 17:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, definately an article in its own right, shouldn't be up for deletion. &mdash;Stepheno 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (GMT)
 * Keep This article is really valuable. It deals with current issues, but is that really so awful?  Even Brittanica does that.  And the information is not all clear-cut -- but so what?  Is that reason not to include it?  Keep it, please!! --Salaw 19:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

votes continued

 * Keep suppressing the story of vote suppression? Guettarda 15:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --Marco 16:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep POV and/or messy article is not a reason for deletion. Clean it up if you don't like it.  Chuck 16:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would vote keep on all the subarticles as well but I don't have the strength. [[User:Xezbeth| Xezbeth ]] 17:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel a strange sense of irony about all of this.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It's silly to keep voting for deletion when there is so much support for this article.Josquin 17:27, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It has obviously already been voted on so why bring it up again? // Liftarn 18:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I am new to Wikipedia. What I found remarkable about this article was, generally speaking, how UNbiased it was.  I run a blog that simply tracks, in the mainstream media, mentions of voting irregularities, recounts, law suits and the like.  I have posted several times in this article links to these news items.  Seems to me that it's a valuable, condensed source of living information - isn't that what Wikipedia is about? // RenaRF  18:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as a short NPOV summary. Move the main details to Wikinews. Keep the short summary for at least 6 months before discussing what details to bring back - i.e. which have survived the passage of time. A perfect example of why Wikinews is needed - to prevent Wikipedia becoming 'something it is not'. Rd232 19:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Needs cleanup, which may be hard to do in a levelheaded manner before the inauguration, when all hope for a reversal dies. But it is a valid article about a historical event. -- Key45 22:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This article has already passed one VfD, which means that the topic is clearly appropriate. If the material is poor, then please flag it for Cleanup or NPOV. VfD is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing these issues. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. come on, look at the name of the article. The least that could be done is rename it to a shorter name. But I say delete it, and the encyclopaedia will be better as a whole. SECProto 01:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Wow, this is fun.  Can we try to delete this page every week?  It's so exciting! --kizzle 08:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Der Eberswalder 08:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Sjc 15:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is a god-awful mess and needs some Stalinist-like purges so that all of wikipedia is not disgraced by its presence, and every single subpage needs to be deleted or at least redirected, but the parent article is on a valid topic and deletion is not the answer. Indrian 15:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a useful resource, and the information has the potential of being presented in a NPOV way. POV and it's-been-getting-worse (a dubious accusation) are not reasons to delete. There's also enough information here to warrant an article outside of the main election article. Contrary to some claims, even though the election was not as close as 2000, concerns of irregularities are still valid, especially in regards to new technologies such as voting machines. As for the subpages: I've voted for some to be merged and some to be kept PenguiN42 16:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This site does a very good job! Anyone is able to put up a counter article if they have some evidence to base it on. In fact it suprises me there is not a schematic for the machine up yet. --Iyrix 03:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I take it that your reference to "evidence" means "facts tending to show that there were irregularities or that they were minor". I agree that such facts should not be ignored, but they should be integrated into this article (as to some extent they already have been), rather than ghetto-ized to a counter article. JamesMLane 18:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There were voting irregularities in all states and somehow we're just focused on ohio.  Why don't we focus on Pennslyvania or Wisconsin?  The irregularities affected Republicans and Democrates equally so there is no need for this page. 24.0.239.252 04:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Even a cursory glance at the article in question demonstrates that it does cover far more than just Ohio, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There has be a lot of attention on ohio and florida outside of the wikipedia world, so it's reasonable that the article reflects that. Finally, even if the irregularities show no bias toward the red or blue side, it's still noteworthy, especially with the introduction of a lot of new voting technology. However, the question of whether there is a bias or not isn't quite resolved... PenguiN42 17:22, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. You wouldn't blink twice before voting for deleting had this happened in a god forsaken country of a god forsaken continent. Of course, a comment on the suspicions is to be kept in the main article of this elections, or in Bush's. Marianocecowski 07:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see anybody proposing the deletion of Post-election_developments_in_Ukraine, 2004. I question your suggestion.  Election irregularities are matters of public interest.  I'm sympathetic to the idea that they should probably be covered as current affairs rather than in the encyclopedia proper, but there is a longstanding practice of covering current events as they happen in Wikipedia.  I myself (as Minority Report) was involved in updating the Barak Obama entry on election night.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "god forsaken country of a god forsaken continent" standard holds much water. There's probably lots of topics that are kept when they happen to the US, but would be deleted if they happened to some "god forsaken" country. Not saying that "god forsaken" countries are less important -- but that's just what happens. BTW, the only continent I can think of that could be considered "god forsaken" is Antarctica, and that doesn't have any countries on it. PenguiN42 17:17, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting information and has improved a bit since I last looked. Keep up with improving the article, and if the sub-articles are kept then the main article should be made much shorter. --TheosThree 12:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a messy article, and it is bound to attract lots of opinionated people, but it is hardly irrelevant.
 * STRONG Keep. While, I realize, this is not specifically Wikipedia's job... in addition to the other roles it fulfills, this page is really the only explicitly (or at least intentionaly) non-partisan place wherein all this information appears to be available on the Internet.  I feel that it is serving a useful purpose on that front, quite apart from my opinion it doesn't merit deletion on it's own grounds.  Why don't those who feel a cleanup is the best solution create an alternative page, agree on an outline based on the currently available content, and the populate that by C&P?  Baylink 18:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no actual discussion here as to what specific items in the article merit it for deletion.  Mostly, the discussion above just whines about the last vote.  The rest claims that this is POV; the solution for POV is to add balancing material for the other side, not to delete.  This article is already too large to merge, even after being split, so I don't see how that is an option. --ssd 20:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	&#364;alabio 03:13, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why is this article on VfD? Many articles have problems, but that is no reason to place promising, potentially useful articles up for deletion. This article has no business being here. --Nat 03:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Do not understand the reason for being on VfD. Surely it can be improved and updated as new information is available (i.e. Ohio recount). --Zappaz 00:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * keep the whole shebang, eventually this article will be the one to prove the value of the wikipedia itself! There is more info on wikipedia about the 2004 Electoral coup than any other single source anywhere.  Pedant 23:45, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)


 * Keep Okay, I'll admit that this article in its current form is not perfect, but even if a majority voted to delete this article, I would expect a version very close to what's there would appear within an hour, & the fight would start all over again. And this topic has a lot of interest both inside outrside the US. (My local newspaper had a column written by its ombudsman addressing the fact many readers want to know more about the election controversy in Ohio. Their response was that since it's not a local topic -- we're talking about The Portland Oregonian here -- they can't devote any reporters to it, & must rely on wire copy. Yet I have noticed they are printing more wire stories on this.) I believe that this topic could be written from a NPOV, but I don't have the time to argue for my vision about this article. But one way to improve it would be to put a moritorium of 3-6 months on further nominations. -- llywrch 00:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the most comprehensive source I can find on this topic. Please don't delete it.
 * Keep Think it should be kept. (Just expressing my opinion. I know I'm quite new here at wikipedia, so feel free to disregard my vote - lest I get accused of being a sockpuppet) --Jpkoester1 14:58, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the few examples where the controversial nature of a topic makes it difficult for wiki content to evolve to a valid story. This page should perhaps be locked (after the more controversial parts are moved to its discussion page).  I came to wikipedia today specifically for a jumping off point on this topic.  -rs2

other voting related discussion in VfD
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

A Modest Proposal
It seems to me that, as with almost every topic of *real* controversy that gets discussed on Wikipedia--much less in the real world--that the problem we're having here is that the two sides are so far apart that each of them feels that the other side is having a different argument entirely.

This is an issue that *should* not be partisan: I don't think that the Republicans among us really want to see unfair elections any more than the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and others do. Alas, since the underlying issue is "who will win the presidential election", and each party prefers it's candidate, we're guaranteed to have some heat with our light.

But I think that it would be helpful if both sides did their absolute level best to try and dial back their rhetoric a bit, and remember that the *issue* here is: "is there provable, demonstrable, scientifically valid evidence that tends to indicate the results of the 51 state presidential elections did not fully, fairly, and accurately reflect the will of the voters?"

Clearly, the group who feels it's worth the larger expense of effort on that front will be partisans of the apparent loser; that's not surprising. But not, by any means, 100%. Also clearly, partisans of the apparent winner will be less inclined to put out the effort. And while an argument could be made that they are thereby either lazy or actively against a full fair reflection of that will, it's not productive to make that argument either, as tempting as it is.

Given the current results of the 2004 election, and the results of the 2000 election, there is clearly absolutely no way at all to ensure that partisanship will not impinge on the only indirectly related issues covered by this article. But the event has happened: there are reports of and questions about inaccuracies and irregularities; there is press coverage; a historical event has taken place; Wikipedia is *not* being primary-source here.

Objectively, the page appears to meet the criteria for existing.

Given this, I think we need to really work on restraining ourselves from descending into the Seven Circles of Meta, and deal with making the primary article as clear, complete, factually accurate, well-referenced, and well-organized as we possibly can, as a service to those who come here to learn.

Since that's what the whole thing's about.

Right?

Baylink 18:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not Wikipedia's job to explore potential controversies or problems with the presidential election in any country. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a medium for original research, propoganda, a fan or critic page, a news report, etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is supposed to record things that are known, not mere speculation and thrashing on the part of what I truly believe are a bunch of sore losers. Therefore the "issue" here isn't what you are saying it is. The issue is whether or not this topic is encyclopedic at all or has a potential to be so. Maybe if different people were writing it this page could very well succeed, but as it stands now it's a mess, and I share the sentiments of others who have said Wikipedia would be best served by deleting this mess (and all of its spawn pages), waiting until a later date (such as after the inauguration), and trying again from scratch. To wade into the primordial ooze that is this page in an attempt to fix it is something that is, for most editors, unthinkable. There is just too much. Too much text, too much crap to sift through, too little valid information, too many people preaching their POV as though God him/her/itself had descended and handed it to them on a golden tablet. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Reene&#9998; 00:48, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't recall saying anything about "exploring"... the page *documents*, as I already noted. It's clear that you think that the people who feel that there was fraud are sore losers, but I'm afraid that's precisely the attitude that is problematic here.  If *I* were a Republican, and in your shoes, I'd be sitting back, comfortable in the knowledge that even if the investigations that the Democrats want were all conducted, nothing would change.


 * If you're not confident in that, then fighting the investigations is tantamount to treason. Hitler.  Godwin.


 * There. :-) Now that we're done with the vituperation, we're back where I started.  Yes, the problem is that each side thinks they're having a different argument, as I suggested originally. You're welcome to your opinion -- and I'm sure you stated it up in the vote... but you really weren't invited to demote this: I'm not exactly a newbie around here, and I put it up top for a reason.


 * I've read the page, and I've spent time as a paid professional editor, and the only POV I see is that you think there isn't anything worth investigating. But that's not a reason not to investigate; not when the stakes are this high.


 * And no, I don't mean the election.


 * I mean American Democracy.


 * Baylink 03:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's one thing I hate, it's someone saying things like "*you* think" and "in *your* shoes" when they haven't the slightest idea as to what my personal stance on something is. As things are you don't even know what kind of footgear I'm wearing, to abuse an oft-used metaphor, and this much is apparent by what you've said.
 * "American democracy at stake"? And you're honestly trying to say you're not using this page as a soapbox? Come on. It's not Wikipedia's job to "save" American democracy or anything of the sort. It's not Wikipedia's job to investigate. Wikipedia is to document what other relatively notable and unbiased sources have investigated. Is this really that difficult to understand? Reene&#9998; 04:11, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Regardless, I think we skipped over a true gem from Baylink, ask yourself:


 * "Is there provable, demonstrable, scientifically valid evidence that tends to indicate the results of the 51 state presidential elections did not fully, fairly, and accurately reflect the will of the voters?" If there is, there should be a page. Period. --kizzle 05:51, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not investigating. This article is documenting the fact that many others have investigated because of objective facts demonstrating there were significant problems and irregularities, and is providing a comprehensive collection of that information (as encyclopedias tend to do).  If the election were won by an 80% majority, this would STILL be a valid Wikipedia entry if the same types of events had occured, although I bet then there wouldn't be such a protest against it.
 * It's time to put aside political differences and simply examine the objective evidence. Document that evidence, analyze that evidence, and digest it into the synthesis of encyclopedic format and news archival that is suitable for a page of this type about an ongoing event with new events each day.  If you find specific passages of the article with POV statements, NPOV them.  If NPOV'ing the statements isn't possible, then do what other controversial articles have done and put bullet lists with point/counterpoint to show what the two perspectives in the controversy are.
 * You wrote above, "This is an Encyclopedia, not a vehicle with which to push your political agenda." Since when did facts become a political agenda?  Wikipedia is about compiling human knowledge.  If someone's "political agenda" is to delete human knowledge, then that runs directly counter to Wikipedia's goals and does not belong here.  There is a large amount of factual information in this article.  In fact, it's the most comprehensive information source on this topic I have seen anywhere, with much thanks to the Wikipedia format which has handled this type of situation in a spectacular manner.
 * I'd just like to take this moment to thank all the editors who have worked hard on organizing the information here and doing their best to keep it as objective and comprehensive as possible. Your efforts are appreciated by many.  --Cortonin 06:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take a genius to arrange information, even factual information, in a manner that is supportive of their personal agenda or POV. That's a huge problem with the article. Every single scrap, every inkling of "fact" reported anywhere (no matter how inconsequential or dubious the source) is being thrust forth as evidence backing up a single pre-formed conclusion. Even the title of the article is POV. There are "irregularities" in every election. What made this one special? Are there any controversies that are actually notable (as in not only discussed on a few independant partisan websites and blogs)? Things like that are what should be summarized, cited (with credible sources) and recorded. Everything else is grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia that aims to be factual and NPOV and therefore should be treated as such. Reene&#9998; 07:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * It takes even less of a genius to fix it if such is the case. The way to get factual information to support a personal agenda or POV is to selectively choose only certain facts.  The way to fix it is to include ALL the facts, so that the interpretations match reality.  So where are the missing facts?  What evidence is being ignored here?  If there is some, please add it to the article.  If the irregularities in this election are identical to "every election", please document that.
 * Wikipedia's goal is not to just document what's said on CNN or Fox, as you seem to be suggesting. We have a page on the History of Ethiopia, yet I have never in my life seen that on any mainstream news.  Sometimes, and I know this seems to be hard for a lot of people to accept, but sometimes the facts strongly support one view over another.  Facts speak for themselves.  If someone can't speak in terms of evidence or facts, then which agenda is really being "pushed"?  --Cortonin 15:59, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If you've never seen anything that's in that article on the mainstream news, you must either be very, very young or live in a country that does not have a good news system. Just about all of the modern history section is there because it was at one time or another thought newsworthy and reported. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It also doesn't take geniuses to make claims like "the article has gotten worse since first VfD", or "it's arranged in unfixable POV fashion", or "people tried to clean it up but were reverted" which are provably false to any third party that looks at the article and page histories in question. If you have a problem with organization then why are you seemingly pro-delete? (when you make claims the article violates wikipedia policy you are at least indirectly saying it should be deleted even if your official position is merge/delete)   The depth and breadth of the article is in direct proportion to the size of the election controversies' issue.  It should be noted the sheer potential for fraud through voting machines, these are not third party accusations of a few extra hundred votes here and there, the scale of the controversies and irregularites is a few orders of magnitude larger.  For sources that are dubious I believe we indicate that, isn't that the wiki way?  Please point out dubious sources we present non-dubiously?  "Irregularities" refers to exit poll and statistical analysis specifically, not any old issue that is a part of every election.  Please point out places in the article that are pre-formed conclusions?  Isn't it notable that the House Judiciary committee is holding hearings on election fraud?  Is it notable the FBI is investigating election fraud?  Please cite specific wikipedia guidelines that back up your claim the article is "grossly inappropriate"?  I detect much hyperbole.  I think we have done a very good job keeping the article as close to NPOV as possible, considering the size and subject matter. zen master 08:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll probably regret chiming in here, as this seems to me a sensitive subject. My comment is directed to Reene, with respect and with no preconceived notions as to political bent or ideology.  Let me also say that I am one of the "newbies" - I have edited the article only to add references from mainstream newspapers.  My comment is best made by way of example.  In the case of the assassination of John F. Kennedy there are facts (still disputed) and conspiracy theories (still active) and opinions as to who assassinated JFK with whose support and who (if anyone) subsequently covered it up.  Most people believe one thing or another with respect to this subject, running the spectrum of the controversies that enveloped and continue to envelop the historical fact of JFK's assassination.  To put forward the theories, to document those issues as they evolved and continue to come forward does not diminish the historical importance of either the assassination itself OR the controversy it sparked.  Most (not all) of what I've read here in support of keeping this article seems to be in that vein - that this is a valid, living, encyclopedic issue that deserves keeping.  I agree.  Reene, I find your arguments largely refuted through what appears to be pretty reasonable grounds for keeping it.  The more you argue, the more I wonder if the only point of view at play here is yours.  --RenaRF  20:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You admit yourself they only appear to be good grounds for keeping the article. I'm sure to some the argument that this story is being "censored" or "suppressed" by evil republican overlords due to the VfDs on the sub pages is compelling too. That doesn't make the accurate or valid though. You should also note that one conspiracy theory is not equal to another; I doubt this will be something that is still discussed a year from now, much less a decade or three. You should also note that my votes haven't been to delete the article outright, but merge the viable information into the main election article or delete it now and revive it later after it has died down and the FUD is separated from the facts. You yourself have stated you have no idea what my POV on the issue is. I would defy any of you to guess it. Also, Cortonin, the history of Ethiopia is well-documented&mdash;in history books. This is likely not an incident that will be making the history books, which leaves the media for relatively reliable information and a concept of notability outside of concerned blogospheres. Now, is there anything else from the peanut gallery or can I get on with my life? :) Reene&#9998; 14:08, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Reene - please note from my previous post (to which you responded, and I thank you for that) that I didn't mention censorship or suppression. If that is an issue, it's not one that I am experiencing.  Now to those items to which I can respond.  The very basis of what you said above is based on your opinion as to whether or not this will have historical value and/or whether or not people will be talking about it a year from now.  This is unknowable - you can't know it, I can't know it.  The fact remains that this is an issue that is getting legitimate press coverage.  Not only is the mainstream media coverage present, but it has decidedly increased.  Does that mean anything in historical context?  I don't know.  It's impossible and frankly a waste of time to guage the importance of this issue a week from now let alone a year from now.  It is developing.  At the extremes, the media could investigate and find deliberate fraud - under that scenario, it's a huge issue that will be recorded historically.  Conversely, the recounts and investigations could continue and no irregularities are found and/or controversies are explained fully and retired, causing the issue to die a natural death.  That does not mean that you or I or anyone else can pre-judge the topic's significance.  The reference to other controversies was not meant in a literal sense - it was meant, rather, to underscore the fact that the controversy surrounding the JFK assassination, in context, evolved in the days, months and years following the assassination itself.  You can't say that this particular controversy doesn't meet that standard because it is still developing.  It's newsworthy and significant and only time will tell whether it is a footnote to the 2004 elections or its headline.  That was the core of my point.  I agree in principle that the article should be as free from bias as possible - clear statements of opinion should not be included.  But conflicting points of view supported by an article or a report does not constitute opinion.  It's merely another piece of a puzzle that, as the pieces are assembled, allow the reader to judge the veracity for him/herself, in much the same way that reading the Wikipedia article on the JFK assassination allows the same.  --RenaRF  11:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't mention alleged censorship or suppression, but others have, and that's where the statement came from. And you're right, none of us are diviners, but a practical conclusion can be drawn based on converage the article has gotten and is currently getting. The size of the article should probably be proportional to the amount of attention it is getting due to the nature of the article in question. I honestly believe the entire issue could be summed up in a few succinct paragraphs, but unfortunately, "Be Bold" doesn't seem to extend to articles of this nature and I haven't the time or patience to sift through every single potential change, document it, discuss and argue about it at length, and end up getting almost nothing done. As of right now this is a footnote and should be treated as such. If in the future it becomes a huge issue, then the article can change to reflect that; this is a Wiki after all, and it isn't as though the article will be stuck with whatever it gets re-written as. But right now a mountain is being made out of a molehill; this has become the proverbial tempest in a teapot. That isn't right. How can anyone say it is, even if they sincerely wish to believe it? Reene&#9998; 17:22, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Because there's no reality-based rationale to your conclusions. You're welcome to that opinion, but it's not based in objective fact, it's based in your assessment of what constitutes 'a practical conclusion'. It's a practical conclusion that the sun and planets revolve about the Earth. It's incorrect when one looks at the evidence with a neutral, critical eye. It's that criticality that is missing from your assertions. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Instead of repeatedly saying my statements are wrong, false, POV, simple opinions, irrational, not based in fact etc ad nauseum do you think you could come up with an example supported by evidence? I don't see what's non-objective about saying "the size of the article should be proportional to the amount of real-world coverage it is getting." Nor do I see what's non-objective about saying "if it becomes an issue the article can still expand, but unless it does it should remain concise." So again, perhaps you could explain. Reene&#9998; 18:05, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Each of my posts is self-explanatory, to the best of my ability. If you did not understand my post, I'm sorry. I have never said your statements are wrong, I am saying they are opinions, not rational fact. You have not made any factual statements I can respond to. The issue has 'already become an issue', and it's clear some people do not want it to be, hence VfD, 'invalid' votes, redirects and page vandalism, etc.


 * Scaling the article to the proportion of real-world coverage? What in your view is a 'practical conclusion' of the appropriate scale? A few paragraphs? I think a large volume of editors working diligently to fact-check and edit these articles would stridently disagree, on factual grounds.


 * I don't need to explain or present further evidence in 'Talk' about the validity of this article - the evidence for the validity of the 'issue' is put right there, on an ongoing basis, in the article, that's what it's about and THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. Not to argue in 'Talk'. And no-one, least of all me, is arguing for the bloated state of the article. Harness your good intentions. Work on the article to improve it's conciseness. Be bold but be truthful - but if you are participating as an editor, please respect the other editors, the community and the value of the information in the article and do not make your sole contribution one of outright deletion. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You keep saying, "the size of the article should be proportional to the amount of real-world coverage it is getting." But this is not true.  It's not as if there is some shortage of space on Wikipedia, or that adding material to one article takes away material from another.  The size of an article should be proportional to the complexity of the subject matter.  An article should be as large as necessary to explain the matter thoroughly.  If an article becomes too large, yet still has much complexity to the subject matter, then it should be broken down into sub-articles (as was done).  --Cortonin 20:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, they're really not "self explanatory" (the indenting was getting silly) hence why I asked you to be specific and support yourself with evidence. Though, you know, the fact that you repeatedly misstate my stance on the issue (intentional or otherwise) despite my repeated corrections leads me to believe further discussion with you (and most others as well it seems) is absoloutely useless. Why bother if other people aren't even going to listen to or acknowledge anything I say? Yeesh. And people wonder why the article is a mess. Reene&#9998; 18:30, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not wish to think you would actually misstate the situation to avoid debate. I have not misstated yours. Nor is it necessary for me to go back and justify my posts. I stand behind them and I continue to welcome your constructive (not destructive) input. Note that I am once again, NOT saying the article cannot be trimmed, changed, etc., as the best 'producer' is often a 'reducer' -- RyanFreisling @ 18:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The only thing that is a mess is the logic of Reene's arguments. What you consider your repeated "corrections" are really just more unsupported accusations.  If there are parts of the article that are shown to be a mess then let's clean them up, instead of playing VfD games, it's very simple really.  Your fanatical insistence/belief the article is a mess/worthy of deletion does not mean it is true.  Don't go to law school is my advice. zen master 18:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You and others have repeatedly stated that I wish to purge, censor, suppress etc the article and the information contained therein. This is simply untrue as I've clarified time after time after time. My input here isn't destructive; indeed the only remotely "questionable" thing I asked you to do was get a specific statement and explain exactly why you were so opposed to it, and even that you refuse to do while insisting you're not misstating my stance (you don't even know what half of my stance on the issue is, yet you feel qualified to say this). I refuse to sit here and take personal attack after personal attack with no justification, as well. This is not the wiki way. Perhaps in another few months, when the article has gotten even more bitter, biased and bloated, it will get tossed up on VfD again and maybe, just maybe then the editors working so fervently on this article will realize something is wrong. But perhaps that is just wishful thinking. And until such a time comes I'll be bowing out of this "discussion", as frankly I have a whole host of other things I'd rather be doing. Reene&#9998; 19:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * "isn't destructive"? You are in favor of deleting or massively reducing this article, that is the most destructive thing that can happen on wikipedia, isn't it?   Asking you to clarify your numerous hyperbole riddled statements are not personal attacks.  You keep claiming the article has gotten worse when numerous people, third parties even, have said it's gotten better.  You have not asked me to do anything, in fact, many people have asked you to defend your statements and be given an opportunity to debate you on the specific issues, but you refuse by creating new tangential accusations or by ignoring people's points.  And you seemingly fail to comprehend the point that "got worse" or even the accusation of got worse is a woefully invalid reason for VfD.  Please list your specific concerns about the article on talk pages in the future (since no one is able to discern any specific concerns you have with the article from amongst your numerous false general accusations here on this VfD).  No one knows even half your stance on the issue because you consistently fail to cleary state any stance.  An increasing degree of rhetoric and hyperbole is not a stance. zen master 20:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue isnt "Bush or Kerry". The issue is "was the vote flawed". Personally here are three facts you should know: (a) I couldn't give a rats **** whether Bush or Kerry wins, as to be honest neither of them will impact my life in the slightest, nor am I aligned to either by belief or knowledge, (b) In a rigged election (if this was one) where the parties were close anyway, its logical that the riggers side will usually win, thats what rigging is for, so you would expect the "losers" to have the complaint, and (c) There seems to be an awful lot of hard evidence and heavyweight activity for a "non issue".

The issue needs a comprehensive article, and that's not because "our side lost" or "their side lost". It's because if this did happen, then (as one expert said in testimony) it will be what isn't visible which is the decider, and when there is significant and widespread evidence that might or could have happened in the single most powerful and dominant country in the world, where 300 million people have one fundamental public control, then yes, I do think its important that the controversy is taken as fundamentally serious and worthy of space.

If the article is too long, or points are missing, then that will become cleaned up over time. This has already begun to happen. Right now its messy for all of us, and that's because we're all of us (online and offline) unsure what happened and piecing it together. The article simply reflects those many viewpoints and is doing a fine job of documenting and summarising them to date. FT2 08:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is following this issue closely, this is about the best resource on the planet right now. As a daily summary of every new development, article, op-ed, etc it can't be beat. PLEASE don't delete it.


 * 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.