Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election


 * 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 delete. Numerically, it's a clear case. In terms of arguments, the "delete" side doesn't contest the topic's notability but argues that it is amply covered in other articles, making this a content fork. While I don't quite get the "POVFORK" argument (the content doesn't seem to take Trump's point of view, but generally identifies the topical allegations as baseless), the argument that we seek to avoid duplication of content remains valid. Likewise, the argument that we shouldn't give undue prominence to fringe views (as reflected in their assessment in reliable sources, not political discourse) is well-established in our practices.  Sandstein  12:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A POVFORK of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, covered at pages including 2020 United States presidential election, List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election and Stop the Steal. Lawsuits filed belong at the lawsuits page, while the unsubstantiated claims made outside of the legal process can be covered at the election and Stop the Steal article, among others, as reliable sources unilaterally reject that such claims are plausible.

Created, no doubt in good faith, by a new editor who I would recommend to stay away from such hot topics until they have more experience (as their contributions are less likely to be undone/unsuitable in other areas). — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe the discussion could result in a transwiki to Conservapedia (lol) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep definitely requires a stand alone article for this notable topic  Nik ol ai h ☎️📖 20:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC) edit: since there've been complaints about !voting, I'll add on the fact that none of the articles mentioned by OP can assimilate the information in this one, with the possible exception of 2020 United States presidential election-but with so much media coverage and attention, it is definitely is deserving of its own article. POVFORK does not apply.
 * Delete as an inappropriate WP:POVFORK GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – per GorillaWarfare. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Delete with no redirect – this article is redundant as we have a more encyclopedic article on this conspiracy theory at Stop the Steal. If there is any unique, reliably sourced information here that passes our WP:GEVAL and WP:NOTNEWS policies and isn't already included in Stop the Steal, it can be merged into that article. I don't think there's much, though. The factual information on the court cases is summed up by our list of lawsuits, and the Stop the Steal article summarises the fringe theory. Per GEVAL/FALSEBALANCE we should omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and much of this article is unduly legitimising baseless claims. I don't see the value of a redirect and it would be inconsistent with other political conspiracy theories (we don't have a redirect from "Barack Obama citizenship allegations" to "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", for example).  Jr8825  •  Talk  17:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK. Any legal challenges arising from the election can be mentioned on the election's page. --WMSR (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK and the suggestions of other editors. Herbfur (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election, while as a POVFORK this should not be kept around, it is a plausible search term, though it should be deleted before redirecting to prevent recreation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. While the fact that Trump did not concede yet and is still claiming fraud is quite historic, having a separate article listing all these allegations seems pointless. BeŻet (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK, yadah yadah yadah, you know the drill. FoxLacy (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reason to have overlapping information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per others and the fact the "presidential" is needlessly capitalized. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and I would suggest a WP:SNOW close. Blatant WP:POVFORK Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  21:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline, so I don't see why we shouldn't let the process play out.
 * As I mention below, this is an article about a breaking event, which has to be handled cautiously. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment All I see from this discussion is editors suggesting deletion for the same couple of reasons over and over again and giving no other reason, with one exception from GP (that is not an issue solved by deletion). This is not how Wikipedia works, please see WP:!vote and WP:Democracy. While some editors have offered suggestions on redirecting etc., I will suggest that, unless you've got something to add other than "per nom", "per others" or "per [user]" etc., there isn't any point really adding another !vote. I would also point that the one "keep" supporter made claim that without evidence is baseless, and I would recommend they provide some evidence. Remember, this is a deletion discussion, not a deletion vote. -- Ted Edwards  22:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming support is necessary for a WP:SNOW closure, which is probably a good idea here due to the breaking news / sensitive nature of this topic. When such an outcome is obvious and one person has clearly stated it it is not necessary for every contributor to re-iterate it, but it's necessary for them to weigh in to make the overwhelming consensus clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why SNOW closures need a high number of participants, for a SNOW closure (specifically an WP:AVALANCHE closure) what needs to be shown is there is no good reason why the article should be kept or the article egegiously breaks a major policy e.g. WP:HOAX, and thus consensus will always be in favor of deletion. If 20 people supported deletion and 2 supported keeping, the consensus would still certainly be for keep if the 20 people were talking nonsense (to be clear, this is not what is going on here, I haven't seen any bad arguments, just unsubstantiated ones, (many) repetitive ones, and some comments that aren't arguments and also add nothing). -- Ted Edwards  03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per GorillaWarfare. Merge with 2020 US presidential election. This article could be easily covered in the election article.  Mgasparin (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. Even if we were going to have a separate article, this title would be inappropriate for it, since it implicitly lends credence to a conspiracy theory in violation of WP:FRINGE; it would be like having an article for "Alleged irregularities in Barack Obama's citizenship." --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - POVFORK full of unreliable sources and credulous nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: at 13-1 plus the nominator (me), I would recommend that this is snow closed by an uninvolved administrator, because the page is on a subject which has been garnering hundreds of thousands of views per day in recent days, and it is thus a highly critical educational and reputational issue to have a POVFORK waiting around for seven days. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering very few arguments have been put forwards for deletion (all I'm seeing is POVFORK being repeated by most editors), there are only three comments (including your opening one) that actually contribute to forming a consensus on deletion, although several comments do make important comments about where the info on this article should be etc. after deletion. This is not a vote, this is a time to come up with arguments and discuss them. So saying there's a majority of 14-1 is irrelevant. However, if there are concerns about this article remaining in the mainspace for any longer, perhaps you could ask an admin to move this article into the draftspace, to allow for the discussion to accumulate more arguments. -- Ted Edwards  03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What is needed for a snow close is not a wealth of distinct arguments, but strong consensus for an argument. For instance, if there is consensus that a page is a copyvio (a much simpler thing to establish) then a page is deleted. One reason is sufficient to delete a page. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that one argument can be enough for SNOW, I made a similar argument (using HOAX as an example). I was merely pointing out that you appeared to request SNOW because many more editors support deletion than oppose it, which is irrelevant for consensus and therefore SNOW. For SNOW, you need to show that the argument(s) for deletion outweigh any arguments for keeping in such a way that consensus could only ever land for deletion. -- Ted Edwards  17:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - very obvious example of a POVFORK and dumping ground for conspiracy theories. Ugh. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per GorillaWarfare. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete but... I think any claim in this article that comes from a WP:RS should be considered for inclusion in the 2020 presidential election article BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The real irregularity is Trump's unhinged behavior. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge WP:RS into main article. I agree with BlackBird1008 that there are some RS worth saving here. This article itself should be deleted, with no redirect. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 23:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: This article should only exist if the word "Alleged" can be dropped from the title. *Actual* irregularities should have an article, but accusations with minimal if any evidence shouldn't have articles. I think we need to wait for some of the GOP's claims to go through the courts, and if there is nothing, then it doesn't deserve its own article. Just my 2cents. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'll argue the contrary view, since I don't see it put, above. I came across this article soon after it was written & raised POV and WP:N flags, and opened discussions on the talk page. As currently written, it still has major POV issues, is not neutral, lacks context, includes unreliable sources - a whole litany of bad things. However I think the article's scope, as encompassed by the title, is an appropriate and notable self-standing topic for Wikipedia, and one not well served in any of places listed at the top of this discussion.
 * As the article amply illustrates, very many allegations are being made; there are reliable sources asserting that the allegations are being made. 2020 United States presidential election has no room for all of the detail. List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election is limited in scope; it surely overlaps with this one, but omits much which can fit here. Stop the Steal is a subclass of the set of issues discussed in this article. Given the mismatch of scope of these with this article, I don't think we have a POVFORK on our hands.
 * The raising of supposed issues appears to be the current modus operandi of Trump & the GOP, and on an unprecedented scale. Whilst 2020 United States presidential election can handle a high-level overview of the stategy, I think there is value in documenting each reliably sourced allegation, notably in terms of what the allegation was; who made it; information supporting or rebutting the alegation; and where pertinent, any outcome, such as in a court case arising from the allegation. If we keep the article, there is a great deal of work to be done. I don't think the poor quality base from which we start is reason for deletion; instead, given the subject matter is notable, it is reason for improvement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's refreshing to see an honest comment like the one above. For whatever it's worth, my vote leans towards Keep. Fraud allegations should indeed not be covered in this article, only the "irregularities" should, which are different in essence, the latter are actual occurances that happened in this election and were reported by sources on all sides of the political map. Searching for this title yields millions of results, thousands a day. If the article is deleted, some cotent should be merged into articles on the election in specific states, such as the 2020 United States presidential election in Michigan. The only conspirational thing here is sadly the censoring efforts. 2Justice (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis is definitely a POVFORK and FRINGE. Reading the article, you can see right away what it is. I’ll add RS to the list of reasons this should be deleted. Come on now.... Dave Dial (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete POVFORK dump from a low-edit account. Some of the article is worth saving elsewhere, but it's otherwise painfully not proofread.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep  Notable enough to keep with expansion. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Rename to 2020 United States presidential election conspiracy theories. Once conspiracy theories get widely distributed online to the point of being discussed and refuted by reliable sources, as they have here (E.g. This subject is on the front page of The New York Times as I type this: ), it is Wikipedia tradition to have an article debunking the conspiracy theories. As just one example: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories Samboy (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this guy -- the phrase "alleged irregularities" is not clear. As an example, Donald Trump is alleging that "undervoting" is irregular when that is common.  He is alleging irregularity in something that factually happened.  But when Donald Trump alleges that his poll watchers weren't allowed to watch, that is a lie (according to his lawyer), so he is alleging something which would actually be irregular, but didn't factually happen.  "Conspiracy theories" seems to be the common phrase used for this sort of stuff, much more appropriate than "alleged irregularities".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.117.246 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep no doubt needs to be reworked almost entirely, but it's an important topic that is getting global attention and probably deserves its own page at this point Anon0098 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly Keep & Merge Draft:Conspiracy theories related to the 2020 United States elections into this article: I believe that the edits made since the nomination have removed most of the content that violated WP:NPOV and there is a discussion at the talk page of the Presidential Election article to not add all of the claims of fraud, while there is a pending merge discussion at the 'Stop the Steal' article. The claims of fraud and fact checks of those claims are being reported by  reliable sources.  The only issue I see above is that the text was too bias and was following a point of view not supported by sources at the time. I will say that I agree with Bilorv that the lawsuit content belongs on the 'List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election' article instead and thus the lawsuit content should be merged there, if there is anything here that has not been covered there.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Amended the link to merge. Also a note that since it is now a draft article, it might contain some content that needs to be deleted instead of being merged.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge any relevant and unique material into Stop the Steal, then redirect this title to List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: There is absolutely nothing POV about this topic. In the aftermath of the election we have been flooded with certifiably false assertions of fraud. There were countless signals for months that this brazen disinformation strategy would be deployed should the election be close or lost. The article should include content from 2020 United States presidential election and Stop the Steal and should not be relegated to a mere list article. If there is any POV at play here, it's by folks who would prefer that this massive sham not be appropriately documented. soibangla (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and merge with List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election, which is undue weight, along with Stop the Steal which is all part of the same think. I'm slightly inclined to agree with soibangla, this is in fact ongoing that can't be consolidated very well in the main article, but people really need to quit with the tendency to jump to creating lots of undue forks to document every single little speck of BS in such detail per NOTNEWS. The title should probably be changed if kept to clarify these are all bad-faith lies, not legitimate allegations. Reywas92Talk 03:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are required to handle it like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories where we have sentences like No evidence supports the conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims with sources and A number of sources have published articles debunking various claims put forward by conspiracy theorists with sources as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say thanks because you ended up giving me an idea to help with the undue weight and I was able to find sources for it. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with all of the WP:POVFORK comments. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per POVFORK, WP:MILL, and WP:FRINGE. We don't address every haunted house, UFO sighting, or one of Donald Trump's 25,000 lies. I would not oppose a very selective merge back to List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this haunted house or UFO sighting is one of the most discussed topics in current news, then yes it is addressed.


 * Delete due to WP:POVFORK, and being an example of both WP:MILL, and WP:FRINGE.TH1980 (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned above, Wikipedia has similar articles for other tragedies but also give arguments that disprove the theories. Keeping this article, but also disproving the information would be the best course of action. Not WP:FRINGE as many Trump supporters believe it as has been reported widely by the news, so no solid mainstream view. Not WP:MILL either, as election result questioning to this extent in a US election is unheard of.  Hun  ter  18:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE and WP:RSUW. This article lends undue weight to the idea that there was widespread voter fraud in the election (regardless of the author's intended purpose), which has been categorically disproved. This topic has already been addressed in other articles as discussed above, and no more credence should be given to it. Haydenaa (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: A POVFORK of conspiracy theories.  // Timothy ::  talk  20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep if the article didn't exist people would be repeatedly trying to create it. This article is aptly named "alleged", because our news cycle is being dominated by allegations, and I am glad to be able to come to wikipedia and see them debunked. Mathiastck (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2020 (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.