Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 United States 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 was Merge and redirect to 2004 United States election voting controversies would appear to best satisfy (or least dissatisfy) concerns raised in this discussion. I've redirected the articles, and suggest interested editors recover whatever content is recoverable therefrom - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Other articles nominated:


 * 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio
 * 2004 United States election voting controversies (Delisted 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
 * 2004 United States presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * 2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression

Prior AfDs for these articles:
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio
 * Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression

I am nominating this and a collection of sub-articles listed above. These articles have been longtime problems, violating the spirit of NOR by stitching together isolated news stories to, by implication, paint a picture of a large swath of problems with the 2004 US Presidential election. The problem is that the view that there was significant controversy is a fantastically fringe view, and that only a handful of the individual events mentioned in any of these articles are remotely encyclopedic. Stitching them together into a monstrously long sequence of articles does not fix the problem. There may be an article to be written on the conspiracy theories surrounding this election, but none of the articles here are appropriate as starting points for the article, and they should be cleared out. An appropriate article would note that the view that there were serious issues with the vote is a fringe view, supported in X ways, and criticized by Y for Z. It would not be a scattered collection of news stories covering minor and insignificant ephemera that is stitched together to give the misleading impression that there is a larger topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's sort of too bad that it's come to this, because I think there's a bit of useful information here, but Phil is right, these have been highly problematic articles for, what, four years now? More argumentative than scholarly, it's a POV, OR nightmare, and there's little evidence that it can or will be fixed. From the graphs that range from misleading to irrelevant, to the overall tone of them all, I think Wikipedia is better off without these. I could be persuaded to think they're worth keeping in some limited capacity, but I'd need to see evidence that a large, concerted effort is made to improve them. I jsut don;t see it happening. Delete . -R. fiend (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, it seems JamesMLane has a point and 2004 United States election voting controversies is noticably better than the others and should maybe be kept. So I'll vote keep that one, but delete the rest as redundant, POV, OR, argumentative junk. From looking at the votes below so far, I'd like to point out that most of the keep votes seem to mostly refer to this one, and it looks like we might have a split decision here, though it's too early to tell. I hope the closer will examine this closely, and not automatically render one verdict for the entire group. -R. fiend (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Ive had to fight hard just to remove some of the poorly sourced materials (materials from a dead blog). If their were some indication of good faith, i would not say delete, but if editors are going to ignore WP:SPS and WP:PROVEIT on the most obviously bad sources, then the chances of reaching consensus is low.  Consider this source shadowbox by what standard is this an acceptable reference? Bonewah (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above. Kironide (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phil's excellent nomination. Eusebeus (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also strongly object to lumping all these together. I worked hard on 2004 United States election voting controversies to eliminate the problems I saw in some of the others.  More generally, to say that it's only a fringe view that there were problems is absurd.  The Republicans said there were problems; they just identified different problems than the Democrats. JamesMLane t c 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)  Addendum: To clarify, I commented specifically on the article about which I have the most knowledge, but I favor keeping all the articles. JamesMLane t c 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I considered not including that one, as it does have a slightly different set of problems from the others - its main problem seems to be that it's a content fork of the other articles. However, it still seems to me to suffer from many of the flaws of OR and POV-writing that the others have. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more like a non-POV fork of the others. The main reason I created the article was that I felt a need for a generalized overview that wouldn't go into nearly so much detail as the other articles on the subject.  In addition, however, I found some tendency for editors working on the other articles to give too much emphasis to pushing the evidence of improprieties.  That's why I call this article a non-POV fork; I think it does a better job of adhering to NPOV.  Note that the first comment on the talk page voices the suspicion that the article is intended to "whitewash" the controversy.


 * You are doubtless aware that the NPOV policy allows for reporting facts about opinions. Take as an example the first paragraph under Recounts.  It reports Nader's charge that there were irregularities and that they favored Bush.  It has a citation.  That's neither POV nor OR.  If you think there are specific statements in the article that are POV or OR, you might point them out.  The comments by you, R. fiend, and Bonewah give an impression of good-faith attempts to fix problems, ruthlessly rebuffed by a cadre of left-wing POV-pushers.  I haven't been much involved in the other articles so I won't comment on that charge as it applies to them.  As to the 2004 United States election voting controversies article, however, that impression is clearly misleading.  Look at the edit history and the talk page and you will see no such record.  I consider it improper to try to delete an article on the bases you've stated when the issues haven't been raised in the appropriate way, i.e., at the article itself.  It gives the strong impression that the real basis for the proposed deletion is guilt by association.  "Delete 'em all and let God sort 'em out" is not a sensible process.


 * Incidentally, there were prior deletion attempts as to the first-named article and, I think, many of the others. Don't AfD rules require that prior deletion attempts be disclosed?  Isn't such disclosure especially appropriate where one of those attempts results in a "keep" after almost 90% of those commenting favored keep?JamesMLane t c 04:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I said content fork, not POV fork - I see plainly what the intent of the fork is. However, it still suffers from the stringing together of insignificant instances into a topic where none exists.


 * As for the rest, if I have inadvertently presented myself as somebody who keeps track of AfD rules (or any other rules) I most sincerely apologize. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There indeed was a previous AFD on some of these (I remember taking part), but I can't seem to find them. If anyone can, by all means provide links. -R. fiend (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the fringe view is that problems were systemic and intentional. I have no problem with an article that covers well sourced claims, my problem is claims for which no reliable source can be found or the only sources are from small, fringe news outlets.  After all, this is a presidential election, there are be plenty of reliable sources on which to rely.  Bonewah (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go one further - plenty of things get one or two stories on the major news outlets that are not, in fact, encyclopedic or worth covering. The low bar for what is considered a significant controversy or irregularity in these articles does the topic a massive disservice that goes beyond the reliability of the information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure what to do with these, but it would both be a shame to throw away the good with the bad as well as to keep the irredeemably bad. I agree with Bonewah that the fringe view is that problems were systemic and intentional and I think we can have at least one article which properly defines that. If we end up just being a wiki clearinghouse for unverified reports, though, we're not doing our job the right way. --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Irregularities were well-recognized by some academics. I don't think it's original research at all to categorize them under one umbrella page -- that's just categorization. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 05:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is to my knowledge untrue - there were a few early papers about the exit polls, but they lie well outside the general consensus, and to my knowledge there is no serious body of follow-up work in the subsequent four years, suggesting this was a bit of a dead end. Please point to some recent work in this field. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2006, Nov, 2007, Though relates more strictly to e-voting in general, 2005, Nov, 2005, 2006. There is not a shortage of peer reviewed academic sources out there.  There is a shortage of will (at least on my part) to wade in and effect real change on this article and have it get wiped out by edit warring. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At a glance, most of those seem like general articles on electronic voting and the associated controversies. To be clear, I think that's a huge issue, but I think it's deeply misleading to portray the 2004 election as an independent topic in that issue. There may be a sub-article to write on e-voting and the 2004 election, but it's a sub-article of the e-voting article, not of the election controversy article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Every article except the general e-voting one and the Nov 2005 one specifically mentions the 2004 presidential election in its title.  The first article uses a county in Ohio as its primary focus.  The one article (aside from the admittedly general one) that doesn't mention the 2004 presidential election in its title mentions it within the first few sentences in the abstract.  All of these focus on the presidential election in 2004 with a minor focus on ohio.  I'm not saying that those articles make the same claims as the authors of this wiki entry, of course they don't.  but I can't agree with your statement that the articles I linked only tangentially address the 2004 presidential elections.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for 2004 United States election voting controversies, Weak Keep for the rest. Definitely notable topics, and there should be at least one article on them (hence my strong keep for 2004 United States election voting controversies, which is an overview of the issues, and also appears to have the fewest POV issues).  It's not clear that we need the sub-articles for the specific issues (and those articles also appear to have more POV issues, though that would be a reason for cleanup rather than deletion), and verified content from them could be moved into the overview article. Klausness (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Would you be willing to change your vote with regards to 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression to delete or merge if I put forth the effort to perform the merge? I have offered my opinion as to what can be salvaged on the talk page of the 2004 United States election voting controversies Bonewah (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities this article seems to cite fairly reliable sources and is written well, there is some OR in there, which will need to be cleaned up, but it is set on a stable foundation of facts. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio, 2004 United States election voting controversies, 2004 United States presidential election controversy, voting machines,2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls and 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression these articles are basically content forks of the original article with next to no references to prove their validity. If references can be found, their information should be integrated into the main article. Atyndall93  |  talk  12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's true, at least for the subarticle I'm most familiar with (2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls). It contains much more detailed information on this topic than the main article (2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities) does, so it is a spinoff article, not a content fork. Most of the extra information has references, just not in the current footnote style. -- Avenue (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep for 2004 United States election voting controversies, keep or merge the rest, per Klausness and JamesMLane. Blanket deletion is not the answer to POV problems. -- Avenue (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I support a merge of 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities into 2004 United States election voting controversies and the various subarticles. At this point I suspect all the subarticles will still be needed, even after cleanup of any POV or poorly referenced statements, but I have no objection in principle to merging any of these into the main article if this can be done without overburdening it with detail. I do think AfD is a needlessly confrontational arena for discussing these possibilities (especially given the strong feelings people evidently have about the subject matter), and that this should instead be done through the article talk pages. -- Avenue (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the top of these articles' talk pages, here are links to their previous VfDs:
 * Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy
 * Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression
 * A previous group VfD included Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida. That article has since merged into United States presidential election in Florida, 2004. This may support the hope that these articles can be cleaned up. -- Avenue (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. Has it really been four years since these went up last? Eesh. There was also, I believe, an arbcom case on the matter, the end result of which was to put the articles on probation. That didn't seem to help them much. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment For the sake of clarity, I'm going to de-list the 2004 United States election voting controversies article, as it is clearly a horse of a different color from the others and deserves its own separate discussion from the original mess. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. It's clear to my that phil's nomination is not motivated by objective analysis, and it's unfortunate that some people were apparently persuaded by phil's misrepresentations in his nom. summary: Multiple congressional hearings with public attendance well over capacity certainly demonstrates it's not WP:FRINGE.  And only the second formal objection to the certification of an electoral vote in the history of the country (the last one being over a hundred years ago) is certainly WP:NOTABLE.  To give just a few examples of facts that contradict phil's assertions - off the top of my head.  if you're new to this, don't be fooled by the rhetoric.  read the articles and judge for yourself. Kevin Baastalk 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This responds to little in my actual nomination, and the responses it does make are flatly untrue. Note that I said in my nomination that an encyclopedic article on this topic is writable - the existing articles simply do not go in that direction. Congressional hearings are held on all sorts of silly things. By that standard we ought to have an article on Communist infiltration of the military in the 1950s. And the formal objection procedure is hardly notable - a Senator and representative joining forces to complain is a bit of a dog bites man scenario in American politics.
 * More significantly, however, these facts - the Congressional hearings and the formal objection - are nowhere near the lead or focus of these articles. Over 4000 words pass in the main article before the hearings are even mentioned, and it is never made clear which of the myriad of issues previously mentioned actually came up in the hearings. To say that the articles provide notable and mainstream coverage when the handful of incidents where this topic had somewhat notable events happen surrounding it are deeply buried in the article is absurd. The bulk of the article is claims like "Absentee ballots were also an issue. In Broward County, Florida, over 58,000 absentee ballots sent to the Postal Service to be sent out to voters were never received by the Postal Service, according to the Postal Service and county election officials." This is cited to a reliable sources, yes. But no evidence of its significance is provided - no follow-ups or sense that this was anything other than a blip. In a massive national election there are going to be blips and oddities that can be verified. Stitching them together into a compendium of "irregularities" is original research, as few of them are likely to be significant or substantive issues.
 * And the justification becomes even more tenuous for an article like 2004 United States presidential election controversy, exit polls where the relation to the significant events like the Congressional hearings appears to be that one House Democrat wrote a few letters asking for the raw exit poll data, and it was mentioned briefly at the hearings. On this slender reed an entire article is constructed, however, full of original research of the most flagrant kind. (Astonishingly, this particular article is, somehow, even worse than I remembered it being.)
 * Kevin's suggestion is correct on exactly one point - people should not simply read my descriptions, but should read the articles. It is impossible, within the confines of reasonable practice on a deletion debate, to adequately catalog and describe the travesty and embarrassment that these articles are. They truly must be seen to be believed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "to adequately catalog and describe the travesty and embarrassment that these articles are. " Certainly neither the pinnacle of nuetrality, nor the words of a man who wants people to form their own opinions.  But at least we agree on one thing, in words if not in deeds. Kevin Baastalk 17:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that NPOV was now being taken to apply to comments in deletion discussions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that either. That's certainly something I would take issue with.  However, i don't think that's the case.  Anyways, I hope that my point was not missed. Kevin Baastalk 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase the first part of what i said. "Certainly not the words of a person motivated by objective analysis," - is what i meant to say.  This first point was that with the cited words you just proved what i had said in the comment that they were a response to. I just found that ironic. Kevin Baastalk 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing that because I think these articles are absolutely awful I must be motivated by something other than objective analysis. This seems puzzling to me, as the articles are transparently awful - nobody other than you on this AfD seems to have any belief that the articles are not rife with OR and POV violations. There seems to be a disagreement on whether to trust the articles to fix themselves or whether to declare them a lost cause, but nobody other than you seems to think they meet the standards of acceptability. Is it possible that, in fact, I have made an objective analysis, and the real problem is that the articles are bad articles, not that I'm a terrible, evil POV pusher? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be - shall i say - promoting a certain characterization of the articles - without - shall we say - providing any specific analysis. I would say it is possible that you have made an objective analysis, but that there is, so far, no evidence to support that claim.   All you seem capable of doing is throwing huge sweeping insults at the content.  That's all i see you do here and that's all i saw happening four years ago.  If someone really sees ways that the articles can be improved - great!  Then improve it in those ways. Destructive criticism is not constructive, and will not become any constructive by making it more egregious and vague.  Kevin Baastalk 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's just untrue, on a number of levels. First of all, editing the articles is far from as simple as you suggest, since you'll be quick to revert them. Second of all, I have offered specific comments here. I have pointed out that the articles are a compendium of trivia that does not establish an overall perspective that there is a coherent topic. I have noted that the most significant claims to notability - Congressional hearings and a formal objection to certification - are buried 4000+ words in the articles. I have identified at least one specific claim that does not have a clear relation to the idea that there is a larger topic here. And, four years ago, I offered analysis of every single source in one of the articles to demonstrate the shoddy sourcing practices the articles were based on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you're imagining things. If i recall correctly you made a bunch of vague complaints on the talk pages and everyone was asking you how the articles could be improved and you never gave one suggestion and never made one edit.  So obviously, you wouldn't know.  And obviously you don't know because what you said about my editing is just plain wrong.  And you have never done anything to improve the articles.  Your list of some of the sources you don't like was not in a form that peopel could discuss it and when asked to put it in a form so that we could discuss the sources you declined.   And 'lo and behold, there was no discussion.  If i recall correctly.  Yes, making edits is a little more difficult than that.  You have to work cooperatively with other people towards consensus. And in some point in the process you have to hit the "edit this page" button and make an improvement to the article. Kevin Baastalk 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep for all but the "Vote Suppression" article The articles all seem to be notable, reasonably well sourced and otherwise not fit for deletion. They are a MESS in terms of style, structure and POV, but none of those are reasons to delete an article.  Even some major sources have been ignored, such as Ars Technica's amazing series on e-voting, RFK junior's RS article about the Ohio election and others.  Even some of the "unsourced" portions such as Specific parts of the voting machines articles are only unsourced for lack effort.  Reliable, verifiable sources exist on the subject, namely here, here and a direct comparison here.  The subject of these articles is important both in a historical context and notable with regards to the extant debate about voting machines.  They need to be kept in. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Part of the problem here is that the subject is really, REALLY personal for people. This is akin to editing the Abortion article.  People believe very strongly that the 2004 election was hijacked by Bush et. al.  Consequently they try very hard to find sourced that agree with that feeling.  That is a problem, because it (obviously) violates POV, but it also leads to a shortage of sources in these articles.  Most academics aren't going to stick their necks out and suggest that Diebold delivered the 2004 elections to the republicans because that's not the kind of people they are.  They didn't get to be academics by making bold claims when the evidence didn't support it.  they got to be academics by amounting masses of evidence for tentative claims on limited subject areas.  Consequently, the academic research is going to be mixed.  However, that doesn't mean that there aren't other sources--reliable publications, films, and other non-academic sources--to be mined.  We are kind of stuck between people who didn't think that bush stole the election (and who consequently will label people who do as WP:FRINGE) and people for whom the theft is glaringly obvious.  I don't think Phil is nominating these articles in bad faith.  there isn't any evidence to suggest that and no real motive--for that matter he has behaved exceedingly well in the face of accusations.  However, I don't share his view of the articles themselves and I think his words on the subject are instructive.  Consider the Estate Tax.  Editors who add the "arguments against" section without the same demand for rigor as the rest of the article are shocked that the section is tagged for being unverified.  surely it is common knowledge that the estate tax is morally wrong, impacts farmers, etc.  One needs to only provide a hint out sources for these claims, just like the population of a town is sourced.  for them, the proposition is uncontroversial.  for people who think the debate over the estate tax is a republican canard, just the opposite is true.  None of this means that either side is wrong.  It means that we are going to have a rough time coming to consensus, but it isn't hopeless. Protonk (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As eloquently put as that was, there is in fact a third way that you have not considered (fallacy of the excluded middle): to describe it from a third-person perspective; to cover the conflict between the two sides and the events that gave rise to that conflict. Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure. I'm not suggesting that it is hopeless, I'm just trying to show why it appears harmless to someone like me (I don't beleive the evidence supports the theory that the 2004 election was stolen, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that it was) and toxic to someone else. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This would be an excellent way to cover the topic. Unfortunately, the current articles make no effort to do this - they are stitched together Frankenarticles that assemble events of marginal and trivial significance into a tapestry masquerading as a topic. As I said above, it's 4000 words before the Congressional hearings are even mentioned. 4000 words spent detailing trivia instead of establishing the topic from an external, third-person perspective that describes it as an issue instead of as a coatrack for advocacy. You're talking a lovely game about what these articles should be and why this is an important topic. I don't disagree - we should have an article about accusations of impropriety in the 2004 US Presidential Election. But to say that the current articles even remotely resemble the article we should have is so transparently untrue that it defies assumptions of good faith. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we edit and condense the articles. They are a TOTAL stylistic and organizational wreck, but they address notable events covered by reliable sources.  The forum to fix POV issues isn't afd.  The solution isn't to raze the earth and start anew (and I'm not saying that is your feeling).  I mean, it isn't easy to fix these articles, but their problems aren't problems that require deletion. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with regards to 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression, it is a highly reduntant copy of the much better 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities 2004 United States election voting controversies with the bulk of the non-redundant information comming from questionable sources. For my part, i would be willing to salvage what is worthwhile and see if it can worked into the main article, but i feel that the vote suppression article is a hopeless wreck that needs to be deleted.  Bonewah (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Addendum, I see that you said from the start that the vote suppression article should be deleted, i should have paid more attention.  Bonewah (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Protonk (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, what would you think about doing it the other way around? I think that the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities is somewhat ungainly.  Trying to pack everything into one article isn't the best approach.  I'd be more inclined to parcel that information out to specific daughter articles, like 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression.  Of course, whether all those issues are covered in detail in one article or each given a separate article, POV and badly sourced statements should be excised. JamesMLane t c 04:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i misspoke above. How do you feel now, given my change above? Also, I have added to the comment section some of what i would like to do Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies Bonewah (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your change doesn't affect the underlying principle: To try to put all the information into one article isn't the best way to serve the reader. I favor the approach of Summary style -- one general article serving as a brief summary of the whole subject, with daughter articles giving more detail on specific aspects (exit polls, vote suppression, electronic voting machines, etc.).  Right now, a reader who already has some background in the subject and who wants a lot of detail can get it from 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities.  That article, however, is kind of long and daunting for the reader who's coming to the subject with little or no prior knowledge and who doesn't want to be immersed in detail.  A reader who wants only an overview of the subject can get it from 2004 United States election voting controversies, with more detail available in the daughter articles.  Should we delete the daughter articles and pack all that detail into one article (under either title)?  No; "very long articles would cause problems."  Should we simply ditch the details?  No; "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia...."  These quotations from Summary style explain why I favor retaining multiple articles. JamesMLane t c 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were 2004 or 2005 I would be merely skeptical of this. But the problems with these articles have been known for years now, and no progress has been shown in four years of people complaining. I have always been skeptical that these articles could improve, but the community has, several times, indicated a desire to let them. At some point, however, the promises of some distant future improvement have to be paid off. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you should know from intimate personal experience, no progress has been shown in four years of people complaining because that's all they did, and for the most part they made vague, general complaints like "i think it's not npov."   how so?  what part is wrong?  what part of policy does it violate?  and how should it be changed?   that's why there's been no progress.  Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your being dishonest here Kevin, I tried to fix problems diff with 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression vis-a-vie WP:SPS, voicing my concerns in advance on the talk page [diff] only to have you revert without comment [diff]. When you did finally comment i was subjected to a long and tedious [argument] concerning the validity of a defunct weblog.  As you can see, my complaints and edits were highly specific and include the relevant wiki rules WP:SPS and WP:PROVEIT.  Please note that the article is currently on kevin's preferred edit.  Bonewah (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not being dishonest here. I wasn't talking about you.  You deleted half the article, then i asked you why and you gave some reply about some detail about some material in one of the many sections you deleted - and you weren't even clear about that.  Then we discussed it for a while, and then you suddenly deleted half the article again.  Very odd, but qualitatively different.  On a positive note, progress was made in discussion about a lawsuit, but so for i haven't seen any of that incorporated into the article.  I find it odd that you choose to delete half the article again instead of working together on a section of it that we've been having productive discussion on.  Kevin Baastalk 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. As a matter of fact, the further we get from the event, the better things will be.  People will be less irked by the actual event and tempers won't run so hot.  I'm not at all surprised that people are still upset by the 2004 election, given that the current officeholder might or might not have stolen it. Protonk (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see little plausible hope that the articles are going to change. The problems have been clear for years, and yet the same people are still standing in the way of any actual revision and denying that the problems exist. You can easily find them - they're the ones on the AfD page flagrantly lying about the content of the articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the imaginary people in phil's head are there to stay. Kevin Baastalk 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a rather needless personal attack, but fair, I suppose, since I've been being coy. I am, obviously, talking about you, and I stand by my assertions. You have been a terribly destructive influence on these articles, and the majority of your contribution to them over the last two years has been to revert good-faith efforts to remove content that violates content policies. Since this is largely a fringe viewpoint of more interest to the people holding it than not, most of the people, myself included, who have objected to the articles have wandered off out of a combination of disgust at your conduct and lack of sufficient investment in the issue to hack through the mess you create for anyone who tries to improve them. As a result the articles remain unchanged, and, whenever a new fuss is raised about them you insist, no, people just need to edit the articles and fix them. Of course, in practice, you'll never allow that to happen. You haven't in four years. You're not about to start. And, once again, the consensus to take your toy away from you and give up is unlikely to form, so you'll get another good year or two of stonewalling the articles that 90% of the people who have looked at see are a complete travesty. Phil Sandifer (talk)
 * I completely disagree with your characterization. The article have remains unchanged in a long time because nobody edited them.  In the past, when editors came along with way to improve it, they worked together with other editors and those improvements were incorporated into the article.  However, when editors came around and just made vague, unsupported criticism and didn't suggest any ways to improve the article or make any edits to the article - lo and behold, they didn't suggest any ways to improve the article or make any edits to the article.  And some of them (i think you were one) seemed rather confused about the whole cause-and-effect part of that. Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What, then, were all those edits to the article you've reverted over the past few years? (These reversions, it should be noted, form the bulk of your contributions to the article.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that is a bold-faced lie. Two, in fact.  The edit history is there for everyone to see.  As is the talk page.  Kevin Baastalk 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right - you have more edits that are minor grammatical tweaks. Then come reversions, then come a handful of substantive edits. My bad. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what - promise not to edit the articles or their talk pages again, period. No reverting them. Promise you'll walk away. I'll withdraw this nomination and do the same - not make another nomination, not raise another arbcom case, not make another edit to the articles, not comment if anyone else nominates them. You think the articles can be fixed if people just edit them to fix them. I think they can be if people are allowed to. We should both be satisfied by the result. So let's both walk away from it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually address specific issues that are brought up on the talk page (when that happens) and discuss things in detail. I have a lot of knowledge on the subject form my experience with the article.  I fail to see how throwing that away would be a good thing.  As to this nomination, well, it's kind of ridiculous after previous noms failed by a long shot.  And although renominating until one gets their way is generally frowned upon, i suppose it's a person's perogative and i'm not one to take away a their freedoms. Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do wish you'd stop egregiously misrepresenting the facts. It's been years since deletion for this article was last discussed - plenty of time for the article to, you know, improve. It hasn't. As for your essentialness to the topic, nobody is essential to any article's quality. Surely you don't think the article would collapse without you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do wish you'd stop egregiously misrepresenting the facts. I already explained why it hasn't improved.  Many times, actually.  Ofcourse nobody is esential to any article's quality - i never said anybody was.  But if people didn't help w/articles simply because they weren't essential, there wouldn't be any articles.  Kevin Baastalk 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would submit that many of the versions you reverted were better than the ones you reverted to. For example, this edit by you makes the article worse where previously it had been better. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all into 2004 United States election voting controversies (thank you for delisting that one) and trim with a chainsaw. The 2004 presidential election results were fairly uncontroversial (though the campaigns were ridden with controversy), so having not one, not two, but five articles detailing "controversies" is way excessive in terms of undue weight. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the concept of "undue weight" can be properly applied in this fashion. An encyclopedia constructed by volunteers will often give more information about the subjects the volunteers tend to be more interested in.  That doesn't mean we should remove information just to achieve a spurious overall balance in our coverage.  If we applied that principle to such topic areas as computers and contemporary popular culture, a chainsaw would be inadequate; we'd need low-yield nuclear weapons.  Would you favor deleting most of the articles listed in Template:Britney Spears just because we don't have comparable coverage of Walt Whitman? JamesMLane t c 09:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair questions which I'll try to answer. To answer your Britney question, no I don't. But these subjects are vastly different, and attract a vastly different audience. Having comprehensive and deep coverage of Britney Spears does not cause any imbalance in any coverage, since there are no major, intrinsic or fundamental neutrality problems when we cover a music star. When we write about political issues however, then there are intrinsic neutrality issues which we need to be especially alert to. We need to re "Controversy", "scandal", and "allegations" articles are not inherently bad for Wikipedia, since they often cover a subject which is about controversy, scandals, or allegations, but they do cause a bias issue and frequently present one side of the case. There are not so many who dispute the outcome of the 2004 election, and therefore we should not present it so that there appears to have been a huge amount of controversy and that we need five articles to cover it all. The fact that these controversies are well-verifiable is not something I dispute, so I favor keeping the main article, but the presence of the extra articles is making the issue bigger than what it really is. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your fundamental premise is still that the number and length of articles on a subject area constitutes an implicit representation that the subject is commensurately important.  I disagree.  There is no Wikipedia Editorial Board or other centralized authority that could make such a representation.  Articles appear and grow based on volunteer interest, constrained (but only slightly) by the notability rule.  If we were to apply an "undue weight" criterion as you suggest, we'd have to remove properly encyclopedic information that had been provided by volunteers interested in the subject -- but we could restore the information later once additional information had been added on some totally unrelated subjects (so that the challenged subject wasn't seen as getting undue attention).  Trying to achieve that kind of overall balance just isn't feasible for a wiki. JamesMLane t c 10:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Phil Sandifer (formerly Snowspinner)'s edit summary when adding the deletion tag to the articles read, "You know, we haven't tried deleting this in ages." Voting 'keep', as Phil  'hasn't tried editing in ages' either. By working on the article rather than nominating it for deletion every few years, people might just come to a reasonable agreement. In my opinion, calling for deletions without good faith participation to address the issues themselves is disruptive behavior in and of itself. As Phil mentions above, this is the second VfD he has brought - and the articles ought not be dependent on any one editor or group of editors for neither their survival nor their deletion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This really shouldn't be a referendum on me. The articles have not improved significantly in four years of everybody agreeing they need to. At some point, enough is enough.Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this shouldn't be a referendum on you. It also shouldn't be a referendum on comparing the challenged articles with the idealized versions of them that might someday be achieved, and deleting any article that falls significantly short.  Instead, the AfD task is comparing each challenged article to what we would have following deletion -- usually, a blank page.  If the article presents some useful information, the readers are generally better off having an imperfect article than having nothing.  That's true even if a particular article is among the many on Wikipedia that haven't improved significantly in four years and that would be universally judged to need substantial improvement.  Those facts about an article do not make out a case for deletion. JamesMLane t c 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. There is no case for deletion here. Improvement, yes, but not deletion. -- Avenue (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, to an extent, but I think what we're looking at here is covering everything in one good article. To do that, we will likely need to delete the excess ones. It may be more of a smerge/redirect, but I'm not convinced there's to much pertinent information in these branches that needs to go back into the central article. And certainly none of these are useful search terms warranting a redirect. We have half a dozen articles here, and I think we can lose 4 or 5 of them without any significant loss to Wikipedia. Kilobytes upon kilobytes of graphs that establish nothing but attempt to give the impression that there is a plethora of data proving malfeasance, enormous block quotes and the plethora of minutae and original reserch make these unreadable garbage that's much more suitable for, well, anywhere but an encyclopedia. If we keep one decent article covering the controversy that did exist in this election, and another on the controversy of electronic voting in general, we'll be better off than this current mess. -R. fiend (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help clean up the sorts of problems you mention. I'm less happy about trying to prejudge in an AfD debate whether the eventual outcome of such cleanup would be essentially a merge, a deletion, or just a smaller subsidiary article (and to do this for four different subarticles), when even small changes to the articles can prompt extensive debate. If this AfD demonstrates anything (besides how touchy many people still are on the whole subject), it's that there is clearly room for reasonable people to disagree about what the overall outcome of cleanup might be. -- Avenue (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2008 (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.