Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straw polls for the 2008 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 Keep -- JForget 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

At first, I thought this page just looked odd with entries such as NASCAR-style points. Then I checked the references. More than a few are linked to political campaigns or personal/political blogs. One to the Charlotte Conservative looks like it might be a news paper, but it is nothing but a rather one sided local blog. I don't see these references as being independent at all, though the article purports to be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, all the guidelines of WP:LIST are followed. The blogs just show the information for the results of a straw poll. User:John J. Bulten makes 100% sure the results are valid before adding them. The sources are independent because no "campaign" website is ever used. Once the election is over this may be an FL. -- S    TX   17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. The author of this article obviously put a lot of time into it, and I find the topic to be fascinating. However, as intriguing as the subject can be, it's not encyclopedic in its current form. Some of the data could possibly be added to Straw Poll, but there we run the risk of adding systemic bias by focusing the article on US politics to the almost total exclusion of other regions... which would mean splitting the article, which is what we have now. I don't know how this article can be kept, as I agree that the sources are less than stellar - particularly in that blogs generally aren't reliable sources. If the blogs cite news coverage or other sources for their data, then we can use those sources. Additional sourcing, or a focus on the straw poll's place in measuring sentiment regarding a presidential election might be better than a simple results page, which this appears to be. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to clarify, my concern is not the NPOV of the article, it is the nonNOPV of the references. There are a few NPOV references from msnbc (for example), but a lot of the information, as presented, would need to get deleted in the absence of neutral, independent sources.  At that point, I am not sure there is much left.  Further, there are some sections of this article that appear WP:OR, based on inventing systems of ranking candidates based on polling. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom's complaint seems more related to NPOV violation than meeting the criteria for deletion. Topic itself seems to meet criteria for notability, verifiability.  Proper remedy is to improve the article. RJC Talk 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep straw polls are an important part of the American presidential nominating process and as such this article is most certainly notable,and therefore warants inclussion; it could use some cleanup however. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely a notable topic and a key part of the US presidential campaign system. My only concern, which is perhaps a rewording of the nom's, is that not every straw poll seems to have its notability proven. (They tend to receive inconsistent coverage, especially since some states' polls are vitally important and others are practically irrelevant.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although it is interesting to see all these straw poll results in one place, the fact is that the vast majority of these straw polls were themselves non-notable and received minimal, if any, news coverage, since they reflect unscientific local samples of the electorate. (For example, the poll used to determine the current Republican leader in Iowa is not the nationally noted Ames straw poll with over 10,000 participants, but a high school straw poll with fewer than 100 participants.) In addition, the analysis of these straw polls (by showing maps of which candidate won the most recent straw poll in each state, Olympic-style results, Nascar-style results, win-place-show results, etc.) is basically original research and not truly meaningful. I would recommend that the supporters of this article take it out of Wikipedia and post the compilation of results at the Campaigns Wikia instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are reasons why this is a bad article and should be improved, but do not touch upon the criteria for deletion. RJC Talk 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While your point on using the Ames straw poll is valid, I just thought it funny that the Ames poll turned out wrong, while the article pick turned out correct. --Crimson30 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is filled with unreliable information and opinion, with spammy links. The entire mess appears to be a coat rack for Ron Paul's campaign.  This is the sort of "informational list" that gives WP a bad reputation as inaccurate. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, that's not exactly true. Ron Paul has done well on straw polls and this article reflects that. The information is reliable and not spam but just links to the sources. Deleting this article would be a huge mistake since there is an abundance of historical interest in it. The list right now is in its preliminary stages (as all election articles are) but I promise you after the election it will be an FL. Give it a chance.-- S    TX   17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, I think this page has alot of merit, possibly split to two pages 1. DEM, 2. REP.--Duchamps_comb MFA 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the individual straw polls in the article do not need to be individually notable; per WP:N, the subject of the article (2008 straw polls) need to be notable, but the threshold of notability does not limit what is included in the article. This is why we have, for example, Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election filled with non-notable people. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - if it's inaccurate, fix it. This is poised to be the most interesting presidential primary race since 1928 and you want to delete verifiable information about it? - McCart42 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Straw polls in an election year are pretty notable. The information is verifiable and the article meets the requirements of WP:LIST. Pilotbob (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Election Update, the article's results for the straws polls just accurately predicted the winner of the Wyoming Caucus (Mitt Romney). -- S    TX   21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - With due respect, this is not about the power of the polls to accurately or inaccurately predict outcomes. I don't think that makes the article any more or less notable or verifiable. I should not be able to list a bunch of my personal predictions in an article, and then after the fact claim the article should have been kept "because my predictions were true". LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response, This isn't a personal prediction this is the results of real, verified straw polls. This was a ridiculous thing to bring to AFD. Save everybody's time and withdraw.-- S    TX   22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not fewer than 13 of the sources referenced in this article are from blogs conducting original research, or from party candidatate websites that cited no sources to confirm the validity of the polls. Maybe poll articles have different standards of verifiability, but I don't see how they do.  I frankly care not if the sources are from Obama, Huckabee, Clinton, or Paul.  If the information is not verifiable from a neutral source, then it doesn't belong.  I am also starting to wonder if the inclusion of information could ever be complete, and as such, is the information here selective toward one candidate/party?  Polls by their nature will generally tilt toward one candidate or party.  I have no problem with that.  My problem is in the verifiability of the outcomes.  There are a lot of sources that are very clearly not neutral and have much to gain by "spinning" (as one site put it) results one way or the other.
 * talk below tries to make a claim that this article should exist because similar articles exist, and we know that is not an argument to be made here (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is your post a deletion argument. There are probably 150 sources, so go to article talk and propose standards for which should be included. I am also aware of a number of polls which never had any balanced results reported on the net at all, and have not included them. This article for many moons has adopted the reasonable standard for inclusion that a neutral report of results is acceptable, if full enough to tabulate totals. If you'd like to change that standard, AFD is not the place. No attempt is made at complete reporting, only reporting of what data meets a reasonable inclusion standard. In everything reported on WP, there is zero range for any spin that may accompany it in source reporting. We're reporting numbers here! Finally, my (first) argument is not an other-stuff argument. It is an argument that accurate data pertaining to an important election, including events both notable and nonnotable in themselves, is perfectly encyclopedic. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I must again politely agree. I did conduct searches and could not find any article to establish the notability, beyond those published by respective party/candidate websites, which I cannot regard as being independent.  The differing methods being used to tally the straw polls give ever indication of original research, given that they are based on non-independent references. I appear to be in the minority, but I stand by my feeling that this does not constitute independently verifibale encyclopedic information that is of permanent interest. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep on same grounds as the five opinion poll articles. Did anyone find any inaccurate data among the various sources (which are necessary due to nature of this article)? The topic is notable, and it is not necessary that each list item itself be notable (echoing Sarcasticidealist). Is there any reason to favor the NASCAR method of ranking, or not to favor it? Discussion has been available on the talk page for months. Would someone prefer the map be changed from most recent poll to largest poll? Or include both? I'm wide open for those approaches, as long as it's consistent, as my and Southern Texas's comments about the map have made clear. Is someone proposing that neutral coverage of all straw polls is a soapbox or coatrack for Paul? That's like saying that neutral coverage of opinion polls is a soapbox or coatrack for Clinton, or whoever's leading; and neutral coverage of the 2004 election is a soapbox for Bush and unfair to Kerry. C'mon. Fact is, there have been a half-dozen items for deletion lately on the grounds that neutral coverage of items that may happen to demonstrate a Paul strength must be outright deleted rather than discussed. Is WP about supporting status quo among senior editors, or about improvement? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. It would have been appropriate to notify me of the AFD on my talk page in timely fashion. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article performs a valuable public service in demonstrating how meaningless straw polls are.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 9 January 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.