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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is not an encyclopaedia article, it is a list of statistics. In the past it has been shown that there is a consensus that such lists should not be included in Wikipedia as independent articles. This is also stated in policy at WP:NOT#STATS. An article about opinion polling for the election citing sourced individual polls, trends, commentary analysis might make an appropriate article, long lists of statistics do not. Wikipdia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because soemthing exists and is verifiable does not mean it should have an article.

Note - I am aware that until recently this article was mentioned in the policy I feel the article violates, having been added nearly three months ago - see [1] - the change appears to have not been discussed; I do not think it reflected consensus and contradicted the intent of the policy.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Opinion polling by state for the United States presidential election, 2008

Graphical representations of two-way-contest opinion polling data from the United States presidential election, 2008

Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates

Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates

Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008

Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
Guest9999 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found it confusing that the nominator had linked all of the listed pages to come to this location. Some people may be responding to the AFD for a particular page. I queried the nominator, all seven are under discussion. See: the conversation at my talk page.
  You may wish to specify the particular article you're responding to.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple article listing per AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.." On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following:"

((subst:afd1|PageName)) .."Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name...--Hu12 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki if an appropriate target exists (perhaps Wikinews could make some use of it, even if not in that form, or an appropriate Wikibook exists?), else delete. The information might be useful and appropriate somewhere, but simple lists of statistics are not encyclopedia articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You argue that there's a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. How about linking to that policy, or previous discussions to support this claim? I would agree that there are many, many instances where information could be better presented as prose rather than a list, and in those cases lists should be discouraged. But lists are an effective means of conveying information, and definitely have an important role in any encyclopedia. Opinion polling is, though certainly imperfect, perhaps the only objective means of measuring candidates' performance in an election campaign. Properly sourced lists of polling results are an appropriate means of documenting the election. I would support the transwiki proposal, but I feel that an encyclopedia is the appropriate place for this information.Alcuin (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator did not say that in the past the consensus had been that lists (in general) should not be included, but that such [long and sprawling] lists of statistics should not be included. You asked for linking to that policy? Well, the nominator did. In case you missed it, here it is again: WP:NOT#STATS.  --Lambiam 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply As mentioned above (thank you) I did not say that there was a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. This is clearly not the case (see WP:LIST, WP:SAL, WP:WIAFL, Category:Lists); I said that there is a consensus that long "lists of statistics" should not be included and linked to the policy that says as much WP:NOT#STATS. I do not agree that a list of poll results is an effective way of communicating information, I feel that an article based on commentry of analysis of the polls and trends shown by the polls would be far more informative than a long list of numbers. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
      • Reply WP:NOT#STATS doesn't support the nominator's arguments. WP:NOT#STATS simply states that lists can potentially be confusing to readers, and to avoid that, sufficient context should be used and infoboxes or tables should be considered when appropriate. These articles already provide sufficient context, and employ tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcuin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Manhattan telephone directory is more useful than this.  --Lambiam 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is 150% untrue, and not funny at all. I wouldn't count your vote for beans, cause your vote has no real reason attached. Fresheneesz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The argument is, of course, that these articles violate WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOT#STATS. I agree that that is not funny. It was not meant to be. With the Manhattan directory, I can look up the phone number of a friend on the Lower East Side, which is imaginable I might want to do. To me it is unimaginable that I might want to look up how Hillary Clinton did against Mitt Romney in the last Newsweek Poll of June 2007. People who can do something meaningful with such raw data, such as political scientists, wouldn't collect the data from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  --Lambiam 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, articles related to US presidents are exempted from such policies. See e.g. Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. --Vsion (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Any reasoning behind this? The fact that enough lists exist to form a category does not mean that any list on a topic is exempt from policy. Would List of the lengths of U.S. Presidents' big toes be an acceptable article? [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Keep I would say, wait until the primaries are over and then clean up (or delete) this page.213.118.17.177 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)— 213.118.17.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Just wondering, why have you linked to the talk page of an unregistered user account? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • My mistake.NicolasRa (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)— NicolasRa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • I wonder why this would deny my opinion on this topic. I'm a frequent reader of these pages and I have posted on other wikipedia pages in other languages but by using other accounts.
• Delete. It is not encyclopedic. -- Mentifisto 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Difficult to use. Dificult to read. Not a list, but several lists without explanation. Not an article. An article could describe other web pages that consolidate this information. Basically a list of links. The topic has a potential as a history of polling for this election, but not in this form. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles present reliably sourced information, in a more straightforward way than could be accomplished with prose. The content is clearly notable, factual, and meaningful to a broad readership, so assertions that it is "unencyclopedic" require further explanation. All that is needed to satisfy WP:NOT#STAT is some improvement to the prose which places the data in context—this is hardly reason to delete the articles. — Swpb^talk.edits 00:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is encyclopedic! It is very informative and gives a clear meaning to the opinion polls. And isn't an encyclopedia suppose to be as informative as possible - without Opinion Polls for a subject like the 08 elections - it would be a rubbish article. Samaster1991 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The information is reasonably organized and seems sourced. A very many editors have been interested in and have edited the page. Even thinking about deleting it seems rather ridiculous to me. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vsion. ViperSnake151 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, these pages are useful and that is all that matters. I think some editors are interpreting wikirules too strictly, this is a classic case of WP:COMMONSENSE.--STX 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Policy says Wikipedia should not contain sprawling lists of statistics, to me common sense would be deleting articles which are comprised only of sprawling lists of statistics. Any page could be useful, an advertisement is useful to some one who wants the product, a guide is useful to someone visiting a city, an artile about my (theoretical) band is useful to people who want more information on non-existant British musical acts. Being useful(links to essay) is not an inclusion criteria in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Strong Keep, per Samaster1991. --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT#STATS, and all lack context; this stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia, and there's absolutely no way to make sense of it. Most keep arguments above are WP:USEFUL, and any number of editors being involved in an article does not make it exempt to policy (the argument that articles relating to presidents is absolutely ludicrous and should be discounted). --Coredesat 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per WP:NOT#STATS, Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Agree strongly with Coredesat's reasoning towards keep arguments. --Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, I actually found this article to be very useful for someone who is interested in these statistics. They are encyclopedic because it is historical information about the opinion of presidential primary contenders for the 2008 elections. I didn't create this article, but I would like to see it stay. Additionally, there are few other sites that have organized these polls in such a way. I find this information particularly under "other polls" to be very interesting. If you don't find this to be the case, then don't read it. Wikipedia is all about the dissemination of information, and this is valuable and interesting information. And P.S. this is not a simple list. This information would take forever to gather from 50 different places, which (at least) makes it a complex list. Just my two cents. --71.0.101.101 (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— 71.0.101.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep, WP:NOT#STATS states that lists should be put in context, and I personally think that there is a sufficient amount of text explaining what the tables are about so that they are not confusing, the page has a high level of readability, and I feel they are sufficiently put in context. Maybe further clarity is needed? Luckydevil713 (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— Luckydevil713 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • How is one sentence that basicly says the "this is a list of..." sufficient context for in some cases, around 50 lists of polls? [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • How is it insufficient, if it explains exactly what is to follow? Is there some ratio of prose characters to tabular characters that indicates insufficient context? — Swpb^talk.edits 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is encyclopedic information from reliable and verifiable sources. WP:NOT#INFO can always be counted on as an excuse for deletion, and we are not left wanting here. Unfortunately, all of this information is rather clearly-defined and discriminate. This is an encylcopedia, and this is the information that belongs here. Alansohn (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#INFO could always be given as a reason for deletion but when there is a section dealing exclusively with this type of article (sprawling lists) you'd think it would carry a bit more weight. The fact that the articles themselves discriminate is irrelevent (wouldn't every possible article except for List of Everything), WP:NOT#INFO is about how Wikipedia dicriminates, not individual articles. [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
• Keep, for the reasons well-expressed by others. --Ben Best (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Getting rid of these articles is taking away information about an upcoming U.S Presidental Election. This is not right. America69 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a guide, it is an encyclopaedia; should we post transcripts of candidates campaign ads as well? [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • Problem is that WP:NOT#GUIDE specifically lists 1) Instruction manuals, 2) Travel guides, 3) Internet guides and 4) Textbooks and annotated texts as falling under its rubric, none of which have anything to do with the articles listed in this AfD. And besides, if we delete this article, don't we have to delete the articles for all candidates? After, all isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is a bit flawed, but that means changes are needed. Deletion is not warranted. More text, fewer straight lists, etc. Opinion polling for this election is certainly notable and encyclopedic and what's here (stubby though the text may be) is valuable. Perhaps we could summarize old polls in text form, only list the more recent polls in table form, and discuss a lot more. Thinking to the future, we will definitely want much of this information (again, probably in a summarized form). Concerning the present, it's clear that this is a widely used resource. This page doesn't warrant deletion at all, but it would be a particular shame to delete it this close to voting when so many external sources are linking in here. --Aranae (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Swpb, User:Luckydevil713. Rami R 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I check this article every day in the lead-up to state primaries. Its a wonderful collection of polls that keeps me informed, rather than depending on 24-hour news networks who only pay attention to their own polls. Coffee and TV (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Hi everyone. I apologise for probably violating loads of protocol. My opinion on this matter is that this article is quite simply very useful, which I think along with 'existing' and 'being verifiable,' -does- qualify it to remain. While it is certainly not a conventional encyclopedia article -now-, that is because the parameter these polls are trying to estimate has not been realised yet. Once the primaries are held, it will be possible to reflect and analyse, decide which polls were most accurate, trying to make out if whether trends were discernible, weighing the pitfalls of comparing data from different polling companies, &c. All of this data -will be- crucial for the future article about the 2008 primaries to which these pages will naturally turn. That article, I think everyone can agree, will be a conventional encyclopedia article, and very much strengthened by the retention of these articles now. -anticlimacus— 76.242.38.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Very useful compilation of polling statistics that is unique. Probably more almanacic than encyclopedic, but a very useful, insightful article. The synthesis and analysis are largely graphic in nature, but wholly proper for this environment. Dawginroswell (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ridiculously Strong Keep. Superb encyclopedic article. I visit it all the time, and I've referenced it in conversation as an example of what's great about the wikipedia. I think that a lot of times people vote for the deletion of articles on the basis that they're not encyclopedic when in fact the only thing that's kept such articles out of encyclopediae in the past is the limitation of previous technologies. The encyclopédistes would have written hymns of praise to this article, and I would too if I could write. Kennethmyers (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This is very helpful info on the upcoming primaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.147.220 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Same as all the above. A useful set of articles to which I refer to quite often. Hektor (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. In addition to being useful, the information is well-organized and deals with a very specific subject. I don't think this qualifies as 'sprawling'. 151.204.231.247 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— 151.204.231.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Well, my thoughts are pretty subjective, in that I have generated 25 some pages of line graphs and bar charts for the 'Graphical Representation' page. This is my first Wiki contribution, though I have been a fan for years. I stumbled onto the page with all that data shortly after it was created, and it was far superior to any of the other entries you get from an 'election polls' google, in that all the polls going way back are on the same page. Then I noticed the Graphics link, and for some reason my Firefox browser didn't see any of the charts done by Robapalooza ... I thought the pages had perhaps been created with an outline, inviting someone to create some graphs, so I did, posting links to web pages I generated. It was not until maybe a month later that I happened to look at the page in IE, and there were all those marvelous charts done by Rob. So, I have tried to structure my charts since as support data. Saw the advice to provide some verbal context the other day, but, being a newbie, I feel like it's Rob's page.
  I feel like the graphs of polling data are a vital part of understanding what might go on in what I consider to be a very important election. The data is arranged on the 'Opinion Polling' page in such a way as to make it very easy to update the graphs, which I would plan to do frequently as the election draws near.
  I have a program that tells who hits which of the above pages on a moment to moment basis, geographic locations of visitors are from all over the place, and daily volumes are building steadily. Hkball (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)— Hkball (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. While the data itself may be bad, the graphs (and trends) that result from the data, the current leaders in states that result from the data, and the trends observable simply by looking at the data are all valuable. None of that could exist without the data. If you were to remove the data, there would still be a need to indicate leaders in various articles. This would cause a lot of dispute about the merits of various polls. Perpetualization (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Keep per WP:IAR. Perpetualization (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. As User:Southern Texas mentioned above, this is a issue of common sense. These polls are not just meaningless statistics, they are used to track the status of the candidates through out the election and are a key fundamental in political campaigns. I think deleting them would be a huge mistake. Rtr10 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's worth noting that these pages get visitors from all over and outside the normal sphere of wikipedia editors. Political sites and blogs link into here. It's possible that some of the above "voters" are questionable, but I think it's more likely they are good faith small-scale contributors that are here largely for the election coverage. With voting starting in a matter of days, you managed to pick just about the busiest time for visitors to put these articles up for deletion. I make this statement for what it's worth in determining consensus as many of these individuals are probably real and large in number, but may also have limited experience with wikipedia as a whole. My opinion (note: I have "voted" above) is that those who advocate deletion have outlined flaws in the pages (why the pages needs work), but have not given sufficient reason as to why they need to be deleted as opposed to just improved upon. --Aranae (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In order for this to be an unbiased article, it must not exclude some polling methods and samples while including others - unless the heading is changed. The merits and disadvantages of various methodology must be explored - not relegated to discussions. Graphs would be fine if they were all-inclusive, or at least separated by categories, questions, candidates included, &c. As it is, the graphs are misleading, and provide ample opportunity for the manipulation of statistics. As covered and outlined in the article's discussion page, this article would require a major rewrite. Until then, it must go. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article is verifiable, encyclopedic, and very useful information. You might not find this information in a regular encyclopedia (just try and find the opinion polling for the primaries by state for the 1976 election in your World Book), but I think that's the entire point of the Wikipedia, we can put more information in here. I think it's silly that we're even discussing deleting these articles. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the individual polls, with their statistics, are widely reported and thus meet the WP requirements. DGG (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. These articles are valuable in describing the history of the 2008 presidential campaign. I have used them several times as very useful link targets from the individual candidates' campaign articles, to support assertions such as "X led Democratic national polls for most of the year" or "throughout 2007, Y never rose above 3 percent in Republican national polls". Without having these articles, I'd have to put together a long string of cites hoping to fairly represent poll results. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I refer to this article frequently to get an overall picture of Republican polling for the election. 75.14.210.121 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (That was me. The Jade Knight (talk))[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not an index of external links or an indiscriminate list of things (even when those things are opinions polls about presidential elections). This may be useful but it is not an encyclopedia article. Move it someplace else. Rossami (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is discriminate, verfiable, notable, and encyclopedic information concerning an election for the highest political office in a superpower. I check these articles probably at least once a week. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I have also relied on this page frequently, but I have to agree that this is not really encyclopedia material. I don't think the purpose of wikipedia is to give up-to-date current affairs statistics or serve as a bookmarks page for such data. The utility of the page is not an argument for it being proper content. I think that it would be appropriate for someone who objects to this page's deletion to volunteer to maintain and host it or a similar page on a non-encyclopedia wiki or similar site. Perhaps it belongs on the Political Science Wiki. Chriscorbell (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There's nothing more encyclopedic than this: it is important to know the course of the campaign by reading poll numbers. --Checco (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ongoing nature of United States Presidential nominations is noteworthy. Blah42 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the person who created the Polling By State page, I'll just say that my intention was to help out those people who would like to see how various candidates fare in state-by-state head-to-head match-ups, which some may consider useful in deciding for whom to vote. I understand the Wikipedia policy, and I agree that much of the information could be removed without really impacting the page's relevance. For example, a single poll result per state, or an average or trend line for each state, might be retained, and a narrative text summarizing the use, issues in polling methodology, etc., might be included. The question then becomes, which poll result to keep (latest poll? 5-poll rolling average? regression analysis?). I would very much like to have seen these issues raised on the discussion pages of the sites in question, rather than having them nominated for deletion. Doktorliability (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These pages meet the basic policies of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV; they are extremely useful; and they do provide more encyclopedic context than mere lists of numbers. I think that they are necessary adjuncts to the main election articles, but might be convinced that a transwiki was appropriate if a suitable target can be identified. However, unless obne is found this information should be kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, I really don't see a case for nominating this at all. Other election articles usually have sections on polling before the election; in this election's case, the polling section got so large that it was more sensible to split it into its own article. Verifiable, useful, encyclopedic, cited content -- so why delete? —Nightstallion 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, This is an excellent example of the virtues of Wikipedia -- user-provided, content-rich, fact-based, useful information. - ArkansasRed (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)This user has made few or no other edits since December 2006 outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Well done to the nominator for focusing discussion on this issue. I agree that this clearly falls outside our policies as outlined in the nomination and further smacks of the unencyclopedic recentism that we have made a concerted effort to discourage. I suggest this be brought to DRV one way or the other to elaborate on what consensus our policies suggest, since the morass of competing opinion above lacks focus. Eusebeus (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but get rid of some of the older data. A lot of this page is useful, such as knowing who is ahead in each state, and to have the map without data would be ridiculous. I do find the page a bit big, if we were to restrict it to polls from November on it might be an improvement. William Quill (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Virtually every election page includes a section on opinion poling. Numerous major elections have separate articles. If you think this should go, then so should Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006, Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2008, and all of Category:Polling. These pages lack context not because they are unencyclopedia or incomplete, but because they are subarticles from the main page United States presidential election, 2008, as noted by the link at the very top of the page.--Patrick Ѻ 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very important and useful article. —V. Z. ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and update - per everyone else who said keep. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of the importance (and fun) of tracking the poll data is watching the ebbs and flows of the line graphs from month to month of the various one-on-one matchups, as events occur in the world. For this reason it is necessary to retain the older data. Hkball (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Here is the full text of WP:NOT#STATS:
  

Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

It doesn't in any manner ban lists. It simply states some statistical lists are "confusing" and even offers suggestions on readability (explanatory text and including infoboxes). With only referencing WP:NOT#STATS and referring to perceived past consensus, the nominator has given no valid reason to delete this article --Oakshade (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The nominator has given very strong reason toimprove the article and none for deleting it. Do we really think that history won't care wht the polls were saying after the election is over. Read about the 2004 election where all everyone talks about is how Dean was ahead or it was Dean vs. Gephart in IA, yet Kerry won there. These numbers are notable, they just need some better presentation. --Aranae (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep please people, break all the rules if rules determine that these incredibly useful articles are to be deleted. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an incredibly useful source of information, probably one of the best on the web. Ruaraidh-dobson (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, and presents significant context. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep. WP:NOT#STATS does not apply in this case. It is a large list, yes, but easily navigable because of the TOC. The information is clearly verifiable and discriminate, however, the article could use improvement. Last I checked AfD is not cleanup. I propose snowball keep because the number of keeps and strong keeps far outweighs the deletes. --Son (talk) 16:19, 30 December 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.