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. The "keep" arguments, which center on notability and general interest, mostly fail to address the WP:SYNTH issues that are raised in the nomination.  Sandstein  16:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election[edit]

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

This article and it's two sub articles are a synthesis of hand picked poll results from across the nation with various methods used to "prove" someone the winner. The concept of straw polls is notable, and the the effects that straw polls have had on the election is probably notable, but there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that groups a bunch of straw polls together like this. There is also some obvious WP:COATRACKing going on from supporters of various political candidates as evidenced from the references linked directly to campaign-related websites. Burzmali (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, intesting, historically noteworthy. Comparison to article shows nomination simply doesn't cut the mustard. WilyD 17:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N isn't the problem WP:V is. While there are lots of references, none of them are to a reliable source that discusses the straw polls as a whole, like this article does. Burzmali (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obvious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems from its inception. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — textbook coatrack filled with original research. MuZemike (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's wikisource material. Transwiki if they want it. Otherwise delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This was always a wp:coatrack. There were no standards over what was included and straw polls are completely worthless anyway. If you look at the results and look at the reality, you'll see they are extremely dissimilar. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as SYNTH. McWomble (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Straw polls are notable, and all are in the context of the presidential election. Adding them into one page is no more SYNTH than adding together all the polls from say Iowa (yes, I know places like realclear do this as well, but I'm sure we have grouped info together in such ways that they have not). If there are OR problems they should be swiftly deleted, so as to keep only the info that has actually made it into the newspapers. Joshdboz (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:IINFO - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". It's a shame that someone put so much work into the page. Fishal (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, interesting, and workable within our standards for avoiding coatracks. MBisanz ^talk 10:06, 9 November 2008 (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.