Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Numerically, it's a clear case. In terms of arguments, the "delete" side doesn't contest the topic's notability but argues that it is amply covered in other articles, making this a content fork. While I don't quite get the "POVFORK" argument (the content doesn't seem to take Trump's point of view, but generally identifies the topical allegations as baseless), the argument that we seek to avoid duplication of content remains valid. Likewise, the argument that we shouldn't give undue prominence to fringe views (as reflected in their assessment in reliable sources, not political discourse) is well-established in our practices. Sandstein 12:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A POVFORK of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, covered at pages including 2020 United States presidential election, List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election and Stop the Steal. Lawsuits filed belong at the lawsuits page, while the unsubstantiated claims made outside of the legal process can be covered at the election and Stop the Steal article, among others, as reliable sources unilaterally reject that such claims are plausible.

Created, no doubt in good faith, by a new editor who I would recommend to stay away from such hot topics until they have more experience (as their contributions are less likely to be undone/unsuitable in other areas). — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention below, this is an article about a breaking event, which has to be handled cautiously. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All I see from this discussion is editors suggesting deletion for the same couple of reasons over and over again and giving no other reason, with one exception from GP (that is not an issue solved by deletion). This is not how Wikipedia works, please see WP:!vote and WP:Democracy. While some editors have offered suggestions on redirecting etc., I will suggest that, unless you've got something to add other than "per nom", "per others" or "per [user]" etc., there isn't any point really adding another !vote. I would also point that the one "keep" supporter made claim that without evidence is baseless, and I would recommend they provide some evidence. Remember, this is a deletion discussion, not a deletion vote. --TedEdwards 22:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwhelming support is necessary for a WP:SNOW closure, which is probably a good idea here due to the breaking news / sensitive nature of this topic. When such an outcome is obvious and one person has clearly stated it it is not necessary for every contributor to re-iterate it, but it's necessary for them to weigh in to make the overwhelming consensus clear. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion: There is no reason why SNOW closures need a high number of participants, for a SNOW closure (specifically an WP:AVALANCHE closure) what needs to be shown is there is no good reason why the article should be kept or the article egegiously breaks a major policy e.g. WP:HOAX, and thus consensus will always be in favor of deletion. If 20 people supported deletion and 2 supported keeping, the consensus would still certainly be for keep if the 20 people were talking nonsense (to be clear, this is not what is going on here, I haven't seen any bad arguments, just unsubstantiated ones, (many) repetitive ones, and some comments that aren't arguments and also add nothing). --TedEdwards 03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GorillaWarfare. Merge with 2020 US presidential election. This article could be easily covered in the election article. Mgasparin (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obvious WP:POVFORK. Even if we were going to have a separate article, this title would be inappropriate for it, since it implicitly lends credence to a conspiracy theory in violation of WP:FRINGE; it would be like having an article for "Alleged irregularities in Barack Obama's citizenship." --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POVFORK full of unreliable sources and credulous nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: at 13-1 plus the nominator (me), I would recommend that this is snow closed by an uninvolved administrator, because the page is on a subject which has been garnering hundreds of thousands of views per day in recent days, and it is thus a highly critical educational and reputational issue to have a POVFORK waiting around for seven days. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Considering very few arguments have been put forwards for deletion (all I'm seeing is POVFORK being repeated by most editors), there are only three comments (including your opening one) that actually contribute to forming a consensus on deletion, although several comments do make important comments about where the info on this article should be etc. after deletion. This is not a vote, this is a time to come up with arguments and discuss them. So saying there's a majority of 14-1 is irrelevant. However, if there are concerns about this article remaining in the mainspace for any longer, perhaps you could ask an admin to move this article into the draftspace, to allow for the discussion to accumulate more arguments. --TedEdwards 03:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed for a snow close is not a wealth of distinct arguments, but strong consensus for an argument. For instance, if there is consensus that a page is a copyvio (a much simpler thing to establish) then a page is deleted. One reason is sufficient to delete a page. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that one argument can be enough for SNOW, I made a similar argument (using HOAX as an example). I was merely pointing out that you appeared to request SNOW because many more editors support deletion than oppose it, which is irrelevant for consensus and therefore SNOW. For SNOW, you need to show that the argument(s) for deletion outweigh any arguments for keeping in such a way that consensus could only ever land for deletion. --TedEdwards 17:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: This article should only exist if the word "Alleged" can be dropped from the title. *Actual* irregularities should have an article, but accusations with minimal if any evidence shouldn't have articles. I think we need to wait for some of the GOP's claims to go through the courts, and if there is nothing, then it doesn't deserve its own article. Just my 2cents. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll argue the contrary view, since I don't see it put, above. I came across this article soon after it was written & raised POV and WP:N flags, and opened discussions on the talk page. As currently written, it still has major POV issues, is not neutral, lacks context, includes unreliable sources - a whole litany of bad things. However I think the article's scope, as encompassed by the title, is an appropriate and notable self-standing topic for Wikipedia, and one not well served in any of places listed at the top of this discussion.
As the article amply illustrates, very many allegations are being made; there are reliable sources asserting that the allegations are being made. 2020 United States presidential election has no room for all of the detail. List of lawsuits relating to the 2020 United States presidential election is limited in scope; it surely overlaps with this one, but omits much which can fit here. Stop the Steal is a subclass of the set of issues discussed in this article. Given the mismatch of scope of these with this article, I don't think we have a POVFORK on our hands.
The raising of supposed issues appears to be the current modus operandi of Trump & the GOP, and on an unprecedented scale. Whilst 2020 United States presidential election can handle a high-level overview of the stategy, I think there is value in documenting each reliably sourced allegation, notably in terms of what the allegation was; who made it; information supporting or rebutting the alegation; and where pertinent, any outcome, such as in a court case arising from the allegation. If we keep the article, there is a great deal of work to be done. I don't think the poor quality base from which we start is reason for deletion; instead, given the subject matter is notable, it is reason for improvement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this guy -- the phrase "alleged irregularities" is not clear. As an example, Donald Trump is alleging that "undervoting" is irregular when that is common. He is alleging irregularity in something that factually happened. But when Donald Trump alleges that his poll watchers weren't allowed to watch, that is a lie (according to his lawyer), so he is alleging something which would actually be irregular, but didn't factually happen. "Conspiracy theories" seems to be the common phrase used for this sort of stuff, much more appropriate than "alleged irregularities". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.117.246 (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Amended the link to merge. Also a note that since it is now a draft article, it might contain some content that needs to be deleted instead of being merged.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are required to handle it like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories where we have sentences like No evidence supports the conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims with sources and A number of sources have published articles debunking various claims put forward by conspiracy theorists with sources as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say thanks because you ended up giving me an idea to help with the undue weight and I was able to find sources for it. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this haunted house or UFO sighting is one of the most discussed topics in current news, then yes it is addressed.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alleged_irregularities_in_the_2020_United_States_Presidential_election&oldid=1142166799"