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. There may be room for an article written on this subject. This article, however, is a graphic display (only partially-sourced) intended, apparently, to simplify the presentation of information. As such, it is arguably speedy-deleteable under CSD A3 (articles with only tables, and no supporting text. That articles must be written is an assumption implicit to the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia. It is also worth observing the inherent POV nature of the present page (Torture and Warrantless Wire-tapping are the only Civil Liberties issues these days?!?!), but this decision is taken on the basis that this content does not constitute an "article", but a pure pictorial display, which Wikipedia plainly is not. Policy demands the removal of this content, and strength of argument for deletion succeeds for this reason. Of course, the composition of a written article on this topic is a separate question, in which many commenters below see some merit. Xoloz 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 2008 United States presidential candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article does not seem to be appropriate per Wikipedia standards. It is unreferenced and serves only as a voting guide which Wikipedia is not. Metros 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have no business making these sort of summaries of positions on complex issues, based on a website with no apparent authority. 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Note to closer, this was posted by DGG -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My initial reaction is to side with no-name here, but I haven't made up my mind. Ichormosquito 09:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but reference and source better this seems very educational. Wikipedia is a reference. Candidates should have their opinions and stances known. By putting it in one place, it makes it convenient for readers to read up on. All the information is out there, it just is being consolidated to one page here. I like it. Arnabdas 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not arguing that it's not informative or educational, but, instead that it's not Wikipedia appropriate. I don't see how this is nothing more than a voting guide for voters. Metros 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the website this is taken from is itself unsourced. EyeSerene^TALK 16:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think the page is a good idea. Very informative as well as convenient. More references would help as well as more issues.--Southern Texas 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same reason as Southern Texas Samaster1991 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Same as above Rysz 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This appears to be a copy of the list linked to, except it is trimmed down a bit. Just add the external link to the appropriate pages instead of copying this list over here Corpx 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Usefulness is not a valid reason to keep. The website where the information is taken from (not that the article acknowledges that fact; it just gives it as a link) is not a reliable source. Either way, it seems borderline copyvio. If it weren't a copyvio, it would probably be original research. Propaniac 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the reasons i created this pages was because the external page is innacurate on some issues (e.g. doesn't mention states decision for some candidates). I figure if each box has a source, than the average user will know the stance on that particular candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corevette (talk • contribs)
  • Comment but each candidate has a "Political views of..." page. Why do we need this summary page if users can look for themselves at the other page? "because it's convenient" is not really that valid because it's not our goal to create a convenient summary page per WP:NOT. Metros 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, this is a summary. On most of the candidates sites, they give an explanation maybe why the believe on the issue, while this gives a straight forward yes/no so the end user knows. corevette
      • But you DECIDING whether to write a yes or no in that box is textbook original research. Propaniac 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't decide yes or no, the candidates do on their websites or other 3rd party websites. i take information straight from the site and currently sourcing everything if anyone would like to help.corevette
• Delete. per Corpx. James Luftan ^contribs 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename: Rename to "Comparison of 2008 United States presidential candidates." Comparison pages on Wikipedia are very encyclopedic and fulfill the goal of encyclopedias. The condensation of information, especially in this case, seems to be what we're going for. .V. _[Talk|Email] 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The website this is based on is of questionable reliability. Any other attempts on our part to crystallize and categorize the various' candidates stances on various issues will by necessity be forced to either cater to a single source or be composed of what is ultimately original research on our part. It is certainly proper for us to have referenced information regarding the candidates' viewpoints on their respective pages but any attempt to create a summary table like this is wholly inapropriate. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would agree with Arnabdas, that as long as the page is sourced better, this article fits under Wikipedia's standards. -- Wikipedical 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs more sources to show that it isn't original research, but it should be too difficult to find out if a candidate is for or against a particular issue. Useight 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is exactly what Wikipedia is about... the unbiased presentation of information in a verifiable and updatable form. Unlike a newspaper editorial, this doesn't seek to influence opinion. If people wish to rely upon this to make a voting decision, I think that they could do a lot worse than seeing a table on how candidates stand on particular issues. Mandsford 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have to say that a well-sourced comparison of candidates positions in any election is encyclopedic content; interesting, educational, and of historical merit. Everything an encyclopedia should be. Emphasis, however, on well-source. --Haemo 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haemo.--JForget 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Same reasoning as I wrote on the talk page: Someone want to explain why religion is in the first chart? Or why certain "issues" like gay marriage have been deemed important enough for inclusion while others like, say, campaign-finance reform aren't? The page is far too inaccurate as to what matters in the US Presidential race, and is far too simple and brief in execution. Fifty7 10:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Fifty7 14:53, 11 August 2007
  • "The page is far too inaccurate as to what matters in the US Presidential race," That is simply an opinion. " and is far too simple and brief in execution." which is why i put it on wikipedia for people to expand. corevette

(UTC)

• Keep Not OR, not POV, appears reasonably-referenced. Perhaps there is still room for improvement, but I see no reason to delete.Matchups 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Summary informative and information very important. Expand number of issues and sources. Put candidate names on top (columns), and issues on side (rows) in order to allow further expansion. JLMadrigal 13:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards keep because of stuff like Comparison of web browsers. Needs to be expanded if kept. Smokizzy (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Rudy Giuliani is for torture and Hillary Clinton is against legal wiretaps? In addition, the issues selected to be addressed in the article seem to be those that would put the democrats in a more favorable light and the republicans in a less favorable light. The wording of the issues themselves seems to do this as well. Because of its summary list style, this article will never advance beyond being POV, misleading, unverifiable assertions. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is referenced, can easily be verified, the material is relevant, no compelling reason to delete. Melsaran 19:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article needs more references and may need to clarify certain positions as some issues are not as simple as for/against, but I do believe this information is relevant and well-organized, making it a good source for readers researching the 2008 election. --musicpvm 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too simplistic, not encyclopedic. WP is not a voter's guide. Wasted Time R 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reason above alone Gang14 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - WP is NOT a voter's guide. --Orange Mike 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmanageble list (what's the criteria for "candidate", "what to comparison", "how to compare"?); Original research (pasting several unrelated sources together IS OR) - Nabla 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I like the list, it is innacurate. It has a bias by not including certain candidates (John Cox) who are campaigning. Also, unless every statement is linked and cited, then we cannot be sure if it correct or not. Also, candidates change position, which might lead to many edits. Most candidates are not just yes and no on issues. It will become unmanageable. Casey14 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These charts tend toward original research and violation of a neutral point of view by oversimplifying the candidates' positions. --Metropolitan90 09:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a factual article that can be listed in the 2008 Presidential Campain Template. Plus, I just added both John Cox and Fred Thompson to the table.71.114.189.135 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realised I was logged out..The edits should be under my above IP listing.CoolKid1993 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As long as all claims can be verified with citations, I think this a great chart to have wikip'fied. Miserlou 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.