Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certification of voting machines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Certification of voting machines

There is a lot of information in this article; however, there is very little context. Further, the information looks like there may be some copyright issues; however, I was unable to find this information on the referenced website. James084 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- 9cds(talk) 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as jumble of words not apparently in an order sufficient to convey anything useful. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Avi 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per 9cds. Royboycrashfan 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per 9cds. --Kinu 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, the content sucks, but the article is important. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Recreate with some real content. Grandmasterka 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Grandmasterka. Articles at least need to convey some information to be kept. If you think it's important, put a useful stub in its place. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote, see below. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I routinely tag these articles with clean up tags even if they are on AfD. This way if they survive AfD they will appear on the various cleanup lists for further attention. I don't think that the fact that an article is tagged as cleanup automatically gives it a pass to stay. This article, as it is written right now, has little or no context. Also, the fact that an article is on AfD does not preclude it from being cleaned up. If somebody can turn this article into something useful I am sure that everyone that has voted for delete would be willing to reconsider their vote. James084 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No evident copyright issues; quoted materials apparently sourced from non-copyrighted US govt publications. Since the subject is notable, and the nominator describes the article as containing "a lot of information," there seem to be no grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 15:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment please keep my comments in context. I said there is a lot of information; however, no context. The reason the article is being nominated is a lack of context, not that it does not contain any information. James084 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And my point, which you're not responding to, is that that's not a reason for deletion under the applicable Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have expanded with context. Though more cleanup is necessary, it should be comprehensible enough to be kept. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-06 19:05Z
  • Article should also be renamed to Certification of voting machines in the United States —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-06 19:09Z
    • Disagree with restricting to United States. Voting is a world-wide issue. --William Allen Simpson 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly needs some cleanup and wikifying, but this is an interesting subject and should be on wikipedia. Agree with Quarl re naming. Mangojuice 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, could still use a lot of editing, but at least it has context now. I would prefer moving to Voting machine certification in the United States (note how it differs from the previous suggestion). - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quarl. Very important subject. Dr Debug (Talk) 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup per those above. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Quarl --Siva1979Talk to me 15:24, 10 February 2006 (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.