141:. Okay, imagine such an article for say, the 1860 presidential election, or the 1960, or whichever one you happen to be familiar with, but is clearly in the past. Would an article like this one really be a meaningful way of organizing the information for future generations of readers? No, because it's a voter guide. Such articles are useful at the time of the election, as this one probably would have been, but rapidly dwindle in usefulness as history makes it more clear whether a candidate's election-time stance on tariff's or what have you was of any importance whatsoever. The much more encyclopedic way to organize information about past elections is prose encyclopedia articles on the elections, which we already do (e.g.
183:. The difference in this is that it focuses upon the platforms and the candidates of the minor political parties. Using the comparison of 1960, the main focus would be on Kennedy and Nixon, but it's also of historical interest to know where other parties stood on the issues of the day. In that particular election, the other parties were Socialist Labor, Prohibition, National State's Rights, Socialist Workers, Constitution, Tax Cut, and Independent Afro-American. Studies of the issues of a now passed election year can hardly be called voters' guides, any more than a list of television programs from 1960 would be called a TV guide.
198:
all it can do is list pre-election stances, not study them in any meaningful historical way. People seem to imply the listing can be a historical document, but encyclopedia articles shouldn't be designed to be primary sources (historical documents). An encyclopedia article should be a tertiary source that's read because it's a useful to general readers, not because historians can draw interesting conclusions from it. --
342:
I am sure they are serious people. However their candidacies were not serious attempts to become
President of the United States. One thing is that a serious candidate must take moderate positions that will get him or her elected. A non-serious candidate is free to advocate all kinds of interesting
302:
Another problem with the article is that it is not comparing peers. Serious candidates who were really trying to become
President, Obama and McCain (Clinton, Romney and others are left out), are "compared" with people like Paul, Nader, Keyes, and others who were running to "make a point" (as we would
391:
Calling it a "voter guide" is simply a loaded way to disparage the page. Call it what it is: a comparison page, similar in form to the many other comparison pages on WP. Search Google for e.g. "site:wikipedia.org inurl:comparison". True, they're not prose. But I fail to see how a) comparisons in
197:
But this isn't a study of anything, it's just a listing of stances. An actual study of stances in context and with future importance is an encyclopedic pursuit, but that's what is done in the main election articles. There's no real way to update this article to include anything after the election...
325:
Who says they aren't serious? Although none of the candidates besides Obama and McCain expected to win, one has to be a "serious" candidate in order to meet the legal requirements to appear on an election ballot. Here in
America, it's not simply a matter of saying "I'm running for President." In
217:
Sorry that I didn't explain more in the nomination. This article seems to violate the policies about collections of information. All the candidates have at least one page where this information is already given, there is no need to collect it all in one place. It also seems to violate the policy
222:
is not in the article since she didn't make it to the final ballot, yet she is much more important than the minor candidates who did and are included. (Please also check out the article's talk page. Everything there is about the election, not about historical
83:
78:
87:
70:
343:
positions such as legalizing marijuana, getting rid of the income tax, closing all of our overseas military bases, etc. It is not fair to compare them side by side, as this article does, when they are not the same thing.
382:. If you wanted a quick way to determine the similarities and differences in opinion of presidential candidates - whether from 1860, 1960, or 2008 - what would you look for? I'd look for something that looked
240:
Quite a good summary article. We need such. That it does not cover the losing primary candidates is a question of scope, & I think the right decision. We might do additional articles about them.
74:
162:: See no violation of policy (if there is one, please state). While such an article could be used for a voter's guide for an upcoming election, students of history might find it interesting. —
66:
58:
116:
326:
many states, the number of qualified persons who must sign the petition must be at least one percent of the number of votes cast in the previous presidential election.
420:
401:
370:
352:
335:
312:
297:
269:
251:
232:
207:
192:
171:
154:
132:
52:
392:
this form are somehow "unencyclopedic", and how b) rewriting this article as prose would make it a more effective tool for its goal: comparing opinions.
142:
218:
against how-to guides. The main purpose seems to have been to help people decide how to vote
November 4. Note that important candidate
393:
180:
17:
435:
36:
434:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
397:
366:
348:
308:
265:
228:
128:
260:
There are already lots of additional articles about every candidate and about the campaign as a whole.
179:
There's no denying that it's copiously sourced, and it has encyclopedic value as an article about the
361:, a non-serious candidate, is much more important in American history than many serious candidates.
331:
188:
203:
150:
123:
This article must violate some WP policy. Is there one that says, "WP is not a voters' guide"?
362:
344:
304:
261:
224:
167:
124:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
416:
411:- If there are problems then improve - deleting is no solution. This is a neccessary page.
219:
327:
184:
293:
247:
199:
146:
163:
49:
104:
412:
358:
288:
242:
428:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
67:
Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
59:
Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008
111:
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
438:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
282:to. There are rather few articles we really
181:United States' 2008 presidential election
143:United States presidential election, 1860
274:that why I said "summary" . We don't
7:
278:to collect it in one place, but we
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
421:20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
402:05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
371:21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
353:21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
336:19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
313:18:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
298:15:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
270:07:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
252:04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
233:02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
208:03:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
193:01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
172:21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
155:21:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
133:20:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
53:00:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
455:
431:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
384:exactly like this page
357:p.s. I think that
446:
433:
114:
108:
90:
44:The result was
34:
454:
453:
449:
448:
447:
445:
444:
443:
442:
436:deletion review
429:
220:Hillary Clinton
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
452:
450:
441:
440:
424:
423:
405:
404:
388:
387:
376:
375:
374:
373:
339:
338:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
255:
254:
235:
212:
211:
210:
174:
157:
121:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
451:
439:
437:
432:
426:
425:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
406:
403:
399:
395:
390:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
337:
333:
329:
324:
323:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
290:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
244:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
223:information.)
221:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
130:
126:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
430:
427:
408:
394:75.45.110.58
383:
379:
363:Steve Dufour
345:Steve Dufour
305:Steve Dufour
303:say on WP).
287:
283:
279:
275:
262:Steve Dufour
241:
237:
225:Steve Dufour
214:
176:
159:
138:
125:Steve Dufour
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
359:Ralph Nader
328:Mandsford
185:Mandsford
200:Rividian
147:Rividian
117:View log
215:Comment
164:ERcheck
84:protect
79:history
50:John254
413:Chendy
139:Delete
112:delete
88:delete
280:ought
145:). --
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
417:talk
409:Keep
398:talk
380:Keep
367:talk
349:talk
332:talk
309:talk
294:talk
284:need
276:need
266:talk
248:talk
238:keep
229:talk
204:talk
189:talk
177:Keep
168:talk
160:Keep
151:talk
129:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
289:DGG
243:DGG
419:)
400:)
369:)
351:)
334:)
311:)
296:)
286:.
268:)
250:)
231:)
206:)
191:)
170:)
153:)
131:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
415:(
396:(
386:.
365:(
347:(
330:(
307:(
292:(
264:(
246:(
227:(
202:(
187:(
166:(
149:(
127:(
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.