Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016


 * 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. Closing this AfD is easy -- there's overwhelming (near unanimous) consensus to delete the page, with most arguments citing WP:FRINGE and WP:FORK. There were a small number of suggestions to do a selective merge, but also some cogent arguments against the merge.

The more complicated part is what to do about the copy-paste version of the article in User:Msheflin. Normally, I'm a proponent of laissez-faire when it comes to user pages. But, given that this user has already declared, I will no longer be using or editing wikipedia, and that the copy appears to be a direct violation of WP:UP and WP:FAKEARTICLE, I'm going to go ahead and delete that content from the user page.

There's a lot of other related discussion material there as well, but I'm going to confine my user-page-cleanup to just the material forked from the mainspace version of this article. The other stuff, while probably not appropriate for a user page, I think falls outside of the scope of what I should be cleaning up as part of an AfD close.

-- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There were some irregularities in the (almost) completed Democratic primaries, but they aren't so notable as to deserve their own article, or even a redirect (hence my decision not to recommend a merge). the past titles included the word "fraud", indicating this article was created with the idea that the vote was "rigged", which is a fringe theory. These irregularities also seem to be unrelated to each other, aside from happening in the 2016 Dem primaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge with Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 if it is not already mentioned. There were irregularities during the voting process, but as for the alleged fraud bit we have to be very careful we don't promote the idea as a fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think a redirect should be left? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the idea, but don't know who would type in "Irregularities during..." in order to search for this info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just asking for the sake of the closing admin. I also don't think it's a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:FRINGE, this article exists solely to advocate a fringe theory with no legitimate evidence from reliable sources to back it up. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem with merging any of the information included in the SYNTH article under consideration here is that there have been numerous discussions on the inclusion of this kind of info in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016‎ Wikipedia article, and I don't think that I'd be too far off the mark in saying that there was pretty much overwhelming consensus again & again to not include these kind of (what really are fringe) allegations in that article, which have mostly come from unreliable sources. I wouldn't be opposed to merging some of the reliably-sourced info from this article here into the Wikipedia articles on the New York Democratic primary, 2016, the Nevada Democratic caucuses and convention, 2016 & the Puerto Rico Democratic caucuses, 2016, if that info isn't already contained in those articles already. I also agree that a redirect would not be appropriate in this case as well, and the many other redirects associated with this article here should be deleted. Guy1890 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Selective merge Either put the information in the "body" of the Dem Primary article (February/March/etc.), or move information to separate articles on the individual primaries. S51438 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's creator has copy/pasted the entire article on his user-page . I am sorry to see this person quit Wikipedia, but per WP:UP among other things this can not remain there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I dunno if any of this can be resolved in this forum, but the original creator of the article under consideration here has also copied & pasted various old talk page threads from both the page under consideration here & some other talk pages to his user page. Guy1890 (talk)
 * It can't be resolved in general. Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It would fall under the criteria for speedy deletion as that isn't what user pages are used for. You can have a draft or sub-user-page but you cant make your userpage look like a main-space article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Cite to that rule. That's not what the rule he cited said.  It doesn't matter either way.  It's backed up on Wikia.  You will not be able to hide the process you've railroaded here.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now this entire AfD discussion is being mirrored on that same user's page. Almost none of what is on that user page is allowed to be there in the first place. I guess that'll be something for the closing administrator to deal with in a few days. Guy1890 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading the language too emphatically. My talk page serves a threefold purpose - 1) it shows what this article/page could have been if you guys weren't disingenuous and actually contributed rather than attempting to excise a minority opinion; 2) it retains a record of the wholly illegitimate process of that excision; 3) while the narrative is now closer to my personal thoughts - because not one single person including you bothered to contribute meaningfully to this page... so I said screw it and now I'm telling the story I see - it obviously doesn't bring Wikipedia into ill repute.  And while the "rule" you cite says that "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," for the reasons I just cited that is not the case here.  Maybe you should be more "generally tolerant and offer[] fairly wide latitude" as Wikipedia requires you to do regarding your judgment of my personal user talk page - which is currently an accounting of why I've left the Wikipedia community.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I learned a long time ago that here on Wikipedia things don't always go how you want them to, as long as you maintain discussion though you can at least have some of what you want included. If you truly have left the community, and do not wish to contribute any longer then why are you still here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I learned a long time ago that Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for the majority viewpoint. I'm just surprised to see it so unabashedly, uninformedly, and unsupportedly become the mouthpiece for a monolithic viewpoint.  Do you really think that belief in irregular or unfair elections or primaries is a fringe opinion - even notwithstanding the clearly at this point knowing lie that the sources are fringe?  And if it is not, then why is none of it included in the Primaries page... kind of seems like it was a deliberate attempt to squelch a minority viewpoint.  And if you actually read the reasons cited by opposed editors, it doesn't just SEEM that way.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to hide anything, by making a separate article devoted to alleged fraud you are promoting the idea. Minor inclusion in a main article is fine as long as you provide the other side's POV. Where for example is the DNC's take on the missing NYC voters issue? Computer errors, and machine breakdowns for example do happen yet that angle is not mentioned once in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not judging intent, though I may appear to be. The impact is what I described.  So in spite of your efforts, you appear to be losing.  And that loss is a loss for everyone.  Per your suggestion, you cannot add any of this or any other irregularities info to the Primaries page bc that page decided - for the same spurious and dishonest reasons you'll see below - that CNN and the New York Times are not reputable or mainstream sources.  So any legitimate info is in fact hidden...  I don't really care what's in the hearts or minds of the people who suppressed the information anymore (to be honest).  I spent a very long time trying to engage with them on the level.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to bet anything that nobody said "CNN and the New York Times are not reputable or mainstream sources". They probably said that those sources don't say what you say they say. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How much were you willing to bet, did you say - "because the sources are actually fringe theories that have not been proven by any reputable sources"? If you're saying nobody's verbatim said that... you're correct.  People state their deletion opinions without looking at the article.  Pretty sneaky sis!  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're misinterpreting what that user wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That user was asserting that facts are proven by consensus.  Both Wikipedia and I disagree with that.  But if you go back to the original thread you will find it riddled with claims that all sources are disreputable and with the implication that regardless of the veracity or verifiability of the underlying *information, no sources could possibly ever be found that would be reputable... and that thus the information must be priorly restrained.  Oops... it's been archived/excised.  Feel free to browse my talk page, though.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Extremely Selective Merge with Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, or as Guy1890 proposed. No redirect required, since there is absolutely no way anyone would search "Irregularities during the..." The material does not appear to be mentioned in that article, and I think at least some inclusion is appropriate, although mitigating the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE aspects is equally important. As a second choice, Selective Merge to the articles on each individual primary. GABgab 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You cannot include any of this information, nor any information about irregularities or alleged fraud, in the primaries article without reopening and reversing the overwhelming consensus against any inclusion of any information - without any legitimate concern cited. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:FRINGE and not being notable for a stand-alone article. Any merging should consider WP:UNDUE. AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as many of the allegations are poorly-sourced fringe theories. If there are well-sourced allegations they can be included in the individual states' primary pages. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FRINGE. Really, few people take this stuff seriously, and the reliable sources only talk about allegations and claims, rather than facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FRINGE because the sources are actually fringe theories that have not been proven by any reputable sources. It seems like the motives of some of these obvious Biased Bernie editors are wrapped in WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information. Perhaps post it to a blog or some other site that isn't an online encyclopedia where people come to get factual information that is proven by consensus and backed with reputable sources. -- Gcock2k10 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources are fringe - the New York Times, the Attorney General for the State of New York, the New York City Comptroller, the Sanders Campaign, CNN, NBC News, Vice, the Las Vegas Sun, Salon, NPR, al Jazeera, USA Today, or The Hill? I know I said I wouldn't post again, but this is the same horseshit slander that showed up in the response to inclusion in the article.  And it's predicated on stupidity.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)  *Let's just be very clear on the fact that the source complaint is an obvious lie.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Until you can (1) provide sources that clearly state factual evidence and (2) provide secondary sources that back up the findings and certify that the findings are indeed actual irregularities and fraud, this article needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform that promotes speculation and/or subjects that have not been covered by reputable and unbiased sources. There is no known consensus surrounding these fringe theories; therefore, they remain fringe theories. That's not slander, it's called the truth. -- Gcock2k10 (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did you concoct these standards? We don't use those verifiability standards for anything else.  And who knows what the truth is... that doesn't enter into this at all.  We've cited a winner in California; whatever the reality is - nobody's won - so that's not the truth, even though it's verifiable.  The theories are not fringe, though they are minority viewpoints.  There you appear to merely be ignorant, so perhaps it is not slander.  However, regardless of the "theories," i.e. what these reputable sources state, the sources provide reputable verifiability.  In other words, your standard of judgment seems to be erroneous, no?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * These standards are derived directly from the five pillars of Wikipedia. WP:CIVIL, which you're failing to adhere to, also comes from the five pillars. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol. My longtime civility gained us nothing.  You may need to provide a more specific citation, since "fact" and "certification" appear to appear not once in the 5 pillars.  They are also not most relevantly applicable to standards for inclusion.  If you'd like I can go back through my notes and find the criteria which are, all of which were met by this article - and any minor problems within which would not normally be grounds for deletion.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Using reputable secondary sources is in the five pillars. Once again, Wikipedia is not a platform to be used to promote fringe theories. Until there are reputable secondary sources that state there are undeniable accounts of irregularities and fraud, this page has no reason for existence. Also, the sources you used do not say there is undeniable evidence of anything; therefore, this page and whoever created it is trying to use Wikipedia to assist a fringe theory that has not been taken seriously. -- Gcock2k10 (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But Clinton won California and that - and the numerical results - are unassailable, and our analysis of how to do citations with regard to that follows an identical process... This is why my civility tanked. There's no way for a normal person to perceive this as consistent.  There's lots of ways for normal people to perceive this as horseshit.  And 'undeniability' is a clearly disingenuous standard.  There will always be both fringe and minority viewpoints.  Squelching them [*by which I meant minority, but not fringe, viewpoints] is not a path to truth.  But in this discussion, logic isn't even a beginning.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The only reason your "civility tanked" is that you chose to tank it. That's your choice and has nothing to do with anything else you're alleging. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay... I apologize for being uncivil in directly responding to your points. Personally, I'd prefer that to nominally condescending, nominally civil incommensurability.  But I have no endgame here and it was counterproductive to reinsert myself.  Good luck deleting the page, guys.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not delete There are scores of serious documented problems with the vote during the primary. Please don't consign them to the Memory Hole. This is my first comment ever. Please excuse minor problems with post. We need Wikipedia to help us list the problems and provide appropriate documentation. This is not a fringe issue. Everyone is affected when the vote is manipulated. I will provide two references just for starters. Let us go to work on it. I can bring a bunch of excellent researchers from Quora. Arizona cut polling places by 2/3s in Maricopa County where Phoenix is. - polling places in NY did not open until noon. The biggest example of vote manipulation is here in my home state of California. The night before the primary the mainstream news announced that HRC had "clinched" the nomination. She did not have the pledged delegates at that time. Some media issued retractions in tiny print the next few days. Lets find out the truth, not repress it. debocracy (talk)June 14 2016 12:48PM PDT —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not going to find unbiased editors here, so consider reserving judgment about Wikipedia's structural problems and intractable bias based solely on these exchanges. If you simply need whitespace, you're more than welcome to add a page to this - http://2016-dem-primary-fraud.wikia.com/wiki/Alleged%20Fraud%20&%20Irregularities%20in%202016%20Dem%20Primaries%20Wikia - and use it however you and whoever else please.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Discussions of significant irregularities belong on the Democratic primaries page (or, as with the events in Nevada,) on the pages of a state Party convention, where anything with sufficient sourcing can be moved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not against including details of notable voting irregularities on wikipedia articles but if this is the case, they are better off in either the main article for the primaries or the articles on the state-level primaries. Most of the irregularities that were reported on were relatively trivial. Having an article to detail them risks giving undue weight to fringe material. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. Graham (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a clear POV fork. It's election season again, hurray!!! Carrite (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2016 (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.