Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008 (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a political consultancy, nor is it a game of Top Trumps. This either simply duplicates information more clearly available in each person's article; or it tends towards a conclusion, in which case it doesn't maintain a neutral point of view. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sheriff  ─╢ 13:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, albeit in a shorter form. The lengthy biographical data is unnecessary, although the stances of different candidates (which includes the third party candidates) is of historical interest.  Obviously, this has not been maintained, and would require a rewrite from present tense to past tense if it were to be rescued.  However, comparisons of this nature are just as appropriate for 1908 as for 2008, and just as appropriate for the multiparty campaigns in other nations. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in possibly a shortened form. Subject matter is encyclopedic, and as long as everything is sourced and no synthesis is used to extract the information, then there's no problem with original research. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reading through the article is hard; it's severely, scathingly true. Considering the entire news media covered these people's political opinions before the election, it is not a simply a "political consultancy" but an accurate summary and reflection of the media's attention. I don't see how it tends to a conclusion, the WP:NPOV conformation is strict and harsh. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am honestly somewhat shocked to see an article of this quality on an encyclopedic topic nominated for deletion. I understand that a paper encyclopedia would probably not refactor information in this way, but to me this is a prime example of how the digital medium creates scope for high quality articles that would not exist otherwise. It is incomprehensible to me that deleting a carefully sourced article such as this could be regarded as improving the encyclopedia. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A dutifully researched, well-written, complete (almost to a fault) article. I think all the biographical information is unnecessary as it can all be found at the articles for the respective candidates; that said, I agree with the other users saying that this an example of a quality that belongs in Wikipedia, if not a printed encyclopedia. I think articles such as this comparing the stances of candidates in other U.S. presidential elections would not be objectionable, either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (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.