Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States election audits and electoral fraud


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

United States election audits and electoral fraud
Original research that does not even really cover the topic alledged, merely mentioning that claims of fraud occur from time to time and then presenting a subjective list of notable political machines. Indrian 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No mention of election audits. The list of persons is not sourced and may well be unsubstantiated original research. The remainder of the article is anodyne but not sufficient for an article. Herostratus 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete as per nom and Herostratus. The title is a bad one and doesn't really fit the article. If the article really were a collection of information on various audits and fraud then the topic would be too big and indiscriminate.Noroton 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I find the article somewhat incoherent and its main content is a brief description of the US electoral system. The only mention of fraud is three links to other articles, and the list of bosses is culled from the Political machine article where it makes a great deal more sense. The two subjects this article does cover it does so in an inferior way to their dedicated articles, and it doesn't mention audits at all. -- Mithent 01:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone wants to make a legit article about the topic. Koweja 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it's OR, I doubt that even the reddest of 'the cabal' would argue that electoral fraud doesn't take place. I think this article could be very greatly improved, with just a tiny little bit more time and effort. I don't see any attempt to discuss the articles future on the talk page, which I never like to see when an article is up for deletion. I like to think of deletion as a last resort, not a first action. Cloveoil 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An article on election auditing and/or fraud or both together would be fine, even needed, but this isn't it. I don't think that every poorly written article should be kept because it could be improved. Some should be, but this throws up a title and follows it with nothing. --killing sparrows 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - although the topic has the makings of an important article, the article itself does not articulate it. I say it be started anew (ie: don't protect the delete) with pertinent and referenced information as it is just an original-referenced mess right now. --  Valley   2   city   ₪‽ 08:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Cant this form part of a sort of disambiguation page, with links to US elections with fraud where there is likely to be detail on what went on during the election anyway? --PrincessBrat 11:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't appear to mention election audits at all and doesn't analyse the alleged frauds it lists. The phrase "electoral fraud in one jurisdiction or another at any time is a virtual certainty" is indicative of the quality of the article, containing as it does an assumption which cannot be verified. BTLizard 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existing article on Election fraud seems to be sufficient to cover the topic, this article doesn't seem to be clearly focused on one subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is entirely WP:OR.  The point of the article seems to be to articulate that machine politics leads to election fraud, and there are no sources backing that up. --Mus Musculus 13:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A mishmash. The top material is better dealt with elsewhere.  The list of bosses could be moved to Political boss, although I think removing all living persons from the list would be good policy, in accordance with WP:BLP - one man's "boss" is another man's "influential politician"... Brianyoumans 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR, unsourced and somewhat confusing. Is it about election audits, electoral fraud, or political bosses? How do the three topics combine to become an article? The topic may be of interest, but this article doesn't appear to be the right approach, to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is unsourced, non-encyclopedic. Not sure if it counts as OR however. But it does not belong without sourcing. Also, the title is inappropriate and does not reflect the content properly. JB Evans  21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Not original research and factually correct. The USA is corrupt as hell and this is a quality article which helps people realise that. Xanucia 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - what you describe may be so but - unlike Karl Marx's view of philosophers - the point of an encyclopedia is to describe the world, not to change it. BTLizard 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks rigor, and is likely to be a vehicle for POV pushing (not that I necessarily disagree with Xanucia's point about the state of U.S. election "law" in the era of hanging chads and black-box "voting" machines). -- Orange Mike 03:38, 6 April 2007 (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.