Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2004, exit polls


 * 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 of the debate was - kept

U.S. presidential election, 2004, exit polls
Oh look! More! Snowspinner 06:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sheesh...
 * Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. Indrian 07:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. - RedWordSmith 07:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot.  I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it...  are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon, Adolph Hitler, and Jesus Christ, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:53, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * If one article is good enough for Napoleon...From the main article on Napolean, plus linked articles:
 * Napoleonic Code
 * Napoleonic Era
 * Napoleonic medal
 * Napoleonic wars
 * Napoleon and the Jews
 * Napoleon in popular culture (esp. as a by-word for mental ill health)
 * Napoleon complex
 * Napoléon (movie)
 * First War against Napoleon
 * Second War against Napoleon
 * The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon
 * This neither for nor against the article under discussion, but pointing out how poor this particular argument is. --Calton 00:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The 18th Brumaire has nothing to do with Napoleon, but with his nephew. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 23:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep more abuse of process. Please stop the nonsense, fix the article don't erase it.Pedant 23:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:15, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!"  I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it.  It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted.  --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Claim that this has been listed before appears to be incorrect, you seem to be getting confused because there are so many of these being spawned off so fast. In this case, doubly confusing because of the extremely similar 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls, which is another reason for deletion (in addition to all the others, see above.) Securiger 15:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My comments on Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Florida apply here also. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 15:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is not about the election controversy. It's about the exit polls in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Zenyu 16:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Which are not important enough to deserve an article separate from the main election article anyway. Indrian 16:58, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them."  Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Noteworthy and relevant. zen master 18:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 19:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - not because of the controversy but because this is a raw data dump. It might be appropriate in Wikisource but it is not an encyclopedia article.  Rossami (talk) 19:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Securiger that the existence of two articles on the exit poll issue is likely to be confusing, but of course deleting both of them is not a sensible solution.  In this article, aside from the raw data dump, there's some information about possible sampling errors in the early exit polls.  I've merged that information into 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls.  Therefore, this article can now be deleted, provided that the other one is kept. JamesMLane 20:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls, in a single table. Kevin Baas | talk 20:54, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization.  Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for.  Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, a garbage POV article from bullshit sources (come on, DU as a primary source for a Wiki article?). TDC 06:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As for other article.Capitalistroadster 11:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh look! More ABUSE!  Keep.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:52, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete:Unregistered I concur ... Wiki is not a blog. This article is prone to vandalism back and forth.  23:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls. I have voted to keep all the other election controversy articles, but I think the exit polls are only of encyclopedic interest because of the controversies. One article on the exit polls is enough. Avenue 11:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into either 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls or 2004_U.S._presidential_election. This one constitutes blatant abuse of VfD. This article isn't even a spinoff of the "controversy" articles. Snowspinner's reason to delete is "Oh look! More!"? I don't think so. PenguiN42 16:53, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Controversy exit poll is another topic, and both articles have their interest. Irrational and abusive VfD, again! --Pgreenfinch 17:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	&#364;alabio 05:45, 2004 Dec 10 (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.