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. Discussions about content and potential merging can still take place at the article and on its talk page. Eddie891TalkWork 02:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Election denial movement" is a phrase sometimes used in reliable sources to refer to attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. While the topic of that article is a notable and clearly defined one, this article synthesises ideas from some sources that use the phrase, and many that don't, to propose an expansive definition that none of them directly support. In other words, this article substantially overlaps with another article, and where its scope extends beyond that article it does so by making claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus AFDKeep and improve. I see this as a bogus AfD because the nominator has made no attempt at the article or on its talk page to address their concerns. Not one attempt. This is not a collaborative or collegial way to deal with this issue. I suggest they immediately withdraw this AfD and get their ass over to the article's talk page and seek to get this straightened out. Their concerns may have some legitimacy, but the proper way to deal with them are to start at the talk page before starting an AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD work. The nom is saying that the concept itself Is not suitable for en.wiki as an encyclopedia. There's nothing, from their perspective, to attempt to fix.
You sound like you are invested in the page and therefore it is understandable that you've reacted as you have. However, we all have a responsibility to assume good faith. In the context of an AfD discussion that means engaging with the process on its own merits and referring to the notability criteria. It certainly doesn't involve demanding that other editors engage in other work. JMWt (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, I have no idea why you would think I am "invested" in this page. That's a weird thing to say, and you need to AGF. I clearly AGF ("Their concerns may have some legitimacy"), but believe this was a misguided and uncollegial approach to resolving the problem. While it's technically allowed to go directly to an AfD or other drama board, it starts a very disruptive process, in the sense that all drama board and AE processes are disruptive and time-consuming time sinks involving many editors. I believe it's better to first try the normal process of talk page discussion, and only when that doesn't work, to then progress to harsher measures. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
If I thought this article was in any way salvageable, I'd certainly have started a discussion at the talk page, or just tried to fix the issues myself. But I don't think that (and hope I haven't given the impression that I do). Why would I begin a talk page discussion about an article that I think needs to be deleted, rather than using the designated venue for deletion discussions? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So it's really only ONE election they didn't like the 2020 one. EVENT not met, we could redirect to the 2020 election, but that's all it's about and is amply covered there. Oaktree b (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree it's a SYNTH. Could perhaps be a 2020 Election denial article, but, there are no other elections denied, so it's seems un-needed to be that descriptive. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the revisions definitely haven't addressed my (the nominator's) objections. The fundamental issue I raised in the nomination remains very much the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prob keep but needs considerable rewriting to avoid WP:BIAS and avoid turning this into a Soapbox. For a start the title needs changing. It may even need complete WP:TNT. In my view there is enough evidence in the sources that there is, in fact, a movement of denial of elections specifically in the USA. How this can be written in a fair and balanced way without undue WP:SYNTH, I have no idea. JMWt (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt: I'd suggest that an article revised in the ways you suggest would be indistinguishable from an article that already exists: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. That article isn't perfect, but it's generally well-sourced and well-written, and its narrow focus on the 2020 election means it avoids making the unsubstantiated claims this article makes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to improve neutrality, refer to the phenomenon in other instances, by other parties. It is a notable topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election: There could be an article on Election denial movements (1960, 1828, 2020, etc in the United States, plus movements in other nationas) as a summary style article for the topic, but as this is written it an dup of the target article. // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- keep both. This article is about a long-term continuing movement that in 2023 is very active in many states in changing election laws for future elections. The other article is highly specific to a historic event 3 years ago. Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources claim that such a movement exists? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several reliable sources in the article refer explicitly to "election denial movement." I would not have created the article without it. The article has been significantly altered in the past day. It's now a different article, so which version are we addressing now? soibangla (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that sources use the phrase, as should be clear from the first sentence of the nomination. I was asking which of the sources make the specific claim Rjensen makes above. It's not a gotcha question or anything, there are 68 sources currently cited and they make a lot of varied claims. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate if editors would enumerate specific words, phrases or sentences in the article, unsupported by reliable sources, that warrant article deletion, particularly but not limited to assertions of POV soibangla (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arms & Hearts: can you provide examples of how the article makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites, as you assert? soibangla (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One obvious example would be the article's first sentence: The election denial movement often refers to a belief of widespread rigging or fraud in US elections with members of the movement referred to as election deniers. This doesn't follow from anything in the article body and isn't supported by any of the sources in the article. More broadly, though, I think you're missing that synthesis doesn't have to work at the level of specific words, phrases or sentences to be a problem (and, as you're probably aware, specific words, phrases or sentencesusually don't amount to good reasons for deletion in and of themselves); in fact, synthesis is often characterised by accurate claims made at the sentence level that are then combined to give an overall impression that's inaccurate. For example, see the sections on the 1876 election and the birther conspiracy theory. What the article explicitly says about these things is broadly accurate and supported by the sources. By discussing those phenomena in this article, though, another claim is being made: that these events form part of a broader "election denial movement". This claim isn't supported by the sources and seems unlikely to be true. (I see that you replied to me twice here, pinging me once, then a third time below, pinging again, the following day, a period in which I wasn't active in this discussion or elsewhere. I'd suggest this is approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory and would remind you that other editors aren't obliged to respond to your inquiries (the corollary of which is that you're free to draw whatever conclusions you wish about other editors' decision not to reply to you). If I'd been actively editing elsewhere, a degree of tetchiness about not receiving a reply would have been understandable, but in these circumstances you could probably have safely assumed I'd reply to you when I got a chance, and left it at one reply, not three.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
none of the three examples you cite here were in the article at the time you opened this AfD.[1]soibangla (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted the specific examples of possible synthesis that have been raised with an in-line synthesis template and removed the birther one altogether since it seemed to focus on a key figure (he's discussed in the key figures section now). I also flagged the recently-added 2000 and 2019 statewide races that could use a more direct connection Superb Owl (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- keep both. This article discusses a movement that is notable to the 2016 election, 2020 election, 2022 election, 2023 Speaker of the House election, 2024 election... and the common people, groups and ideas across these elections. Have reorganized the page to better reflect this and added links between related articles and addressed a number of the NPOV issues. Superb Owl (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about renaming the article "Election denialism in the United States"? Superb Owl (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your significant edits in the past day have made it difficult for editors know to which version of the article we're discussing here now, perhaps leading some to conclude this "new" version should be deleted, rather than the version at the time of this AfD. I recommend you roll back your edits until this AfD is settled. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not roll back. It is normal & desirable to improve an article while deletion is discussed, to correct weaknesses & lead to non-deletion. Kim9988 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Do not roll back legitimate edits that seek to meet criticisms and improve the article. Do not roll back to a previous version. It has always been normal practice to improve the article during the AfD process. Right in the notice it says: "Feel free to improve the article." In fact, the ideal result of an AfD is that the article is improved so much it is saved and the AfD is withdrawn.
Liz, please take note. Your rollback is totally against normal process and instructions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Almost all of the article's content is already covered in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. While there were some claims of "STOLEN ELECTION!!!11!!!1" in the 2022 election cycle, they were nowhere near as widespread and were generally not taken seriously by the public (see 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election), because absentee voting, which Trump had consistently fearmongered about, was not as heavily utilized in that election. This is not enough to justify a standalone article. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the attempts to overturn elections in 2022 might not have been as notable as they were in 2020, I don't think that is a slam-dunk for saying that there is not an existing undercurrent. Additionally, I'm not sure that the argument that the efforts were not taken seriously by the public isn't as strong of an argument when voter turnout — particularly in off-year elections — isn't super high. User:JusBer88 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes reliable sources are studying the election denial movement: (1) Brookings Institute (Nov 15 2022) describes it : "The recent election was very bad for the election denier movement, and the election of Katie Hobbs as governor of Arizona completed the bad news. Hobbs...held the line against people who, like their leader Donald Trump, believed that there was massive corruption in the 2020 election. In the years since, they believed that by “fixing” the system, Trump could win in 2024. By sowing unfounded doubt about election administration in many places, they created a threat to democracy....we identified 345 candidates running on a platform of election denial.... Overall, 226 election deniers or 66% won their races." see online published statement (2) Also: "The election denial movement is the culmination of years of partisan wrangling over the rules that govern elections along with increasing skepticism about the reliability...." [from Sautter, Chris. "US Democracy Survives a Challenge." in Campaigns and Elections American Style (Routledge, 2023) pp. 33-51.]; (3) "The election denial movement began with the Tea Party’s formation around the time of President Obama’s first election, fueled by White Christian Republican fear of losing power." [Smolar, Andrew I. "How Group Identifications Have Contributed to Our National Discord." Group 47#12 (2023): 115-147.] Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve and probably rename. To what, I don't know, maybe "Republican Party election denial movement". If the consensus is this article has to include all times that someone has ever denied the results of an election, then I don't really think that's notable as it's synthesis of many different, unrelated topics into one article, it could be a list article I guess. As it is, the title and to a lesser extent article content is very vague, when the focus and title of the article should be basically fully focused on the movement Trump initiated in 2020, primed by the background of him claiming he really won the popular vote in 2016 and all of his other conspiracy theories like birtherism (priming people to believe facts without evidence). All of previous to 2020 should be in a general "background" heading. At this point, the attempts to deny almost every single Republican election that is lost as "rigged" since 2020 probably deserves its own article beyond the very well resourced 2020 one, the 2020 article can't include all the details of elections like Kari Lake. Also, I don't understand why there's so much information about elections before and since 2020 but only a "see main" about the main event in this whole movement with no summary whatsoever.MarkiPoli (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MarkiPoli please see the version of the article that existed at the time this AfD was opened.[2] The article has been substantially altered since then. It is now a completely different article, and I again ask Superb Owl to roll back their major changes so everyone here is reading from the same sheet of music regarding this AfD dated October 14. Liz, because you relisted this AfD, I request your attention to this matter, as I believe this process has been corrupted such that we cannot know if editors are discussing the original AfD version or the current version that is substantially different. soibangla (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That version is *better*, although the first sentence arguably violates NPOV and is kind of clunky, it would be better just starting out at 2020 and going through the events since then and the movement it started. The eventual article should probably be closer to that revision than the current version in my opinion. My view has not changed, the article should be kept but improved and retitled, imo "Election denialism in the United States" is not specific enough to the fact this is a Trump and Republican party phenomenon. There's other party candidates that have claimed fraud/rigging such as Stacey Abrams, but at that point you would have to make it a list article as they are totally unrelated apart from the fact they claimed fraud, which you can do for any number of reasons, unlike the clear line you can draw between 2020, increased voting restrictions in red states, Kari Lake, coming up to 2024, etc. You can't do all of that on the 2020 overturning article, which is already too long. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral and potentially close — I have looked over the previous version and concur that Superb Owl has substantially altered this article's focus and thus this AfD is nullified. Further consideration will need to take place to determine if this article should be deleted. In its current state, this article is not up to a sufficient standard for Wikipedia and should be further worked on. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I received an email notification of this discussion so I feel obligated to say something. I briefly scanned the Oct 23 and current versions. I'm short on time today (sorry), so I'll just make a general comment. U.S. 2020 election denial is a massive topic. Because existing articles — Attempts to overturn..., United States House Select Committee..., various indictments — are already long and tend to focus on the actions of Trump's inner circle, we do need a "movement" article like this to describe the phenomenon more sociologically. Tens of millions of U.S. voters continue to put political faith in Trump, centered on their shared denialism of the 2020 election specifically or (it seems to me) on a more general affirmation that Trump always wins and thus elections aren't trustworthy and don't matter. (I don't have time to seek reliable sources to demonstrate that claim right now. I'm just imagining what this article could be about, were it to survive on Wikipedia and be expanded.) Yes, this "movement" is a relevant, significant topic. Keeping "United States" or "Republican" in the title is of course helpful. I don't immediately have any ideas about the best way to write this article, and I would defer to people who have already spent time thinking about it. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously strongly notable topic and equally clearly this is about more than just the 2020 presidential election. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes - *entirely* agree with those above that consider the current article worthy (for a variety of reasons) - and relevant - nonetheless - further improvements are ok of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Original synthesis. The current version has not solved the OR issues. The nominator is absolutely correct that the sources are connecting events across time into an original conception of an "election denial movement ". It's a convincing essay, and would be great as a college paper, but it is an original synthesis of events drawn into a larger picture than any one source provides. It could be draftified and retitled Denial of elections in the United States and rewritten in order to remove the original synthesis. It isn't ready for main space in its current state.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an editor to provide a concrete example from the article to illustrate that it is synthesis, original research, POV or makes "makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites," as opposed to, say...WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just one example? Arms & Hearts? soibangla (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soibangla Synthesis is about the whole and not just the parts. Please provide a single source that has an overarching narrative that reflects the overarching narrative of this article and ties all of the composite parts together in the way this one has. There isn’t one. Hence original synthesis.4meter4 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, are you arguing that our articles must have an overarching narrative supported by just one overarching source? you seem to argue that if I cannot produce one source that encompasses the entire article and ties all of the composite parts together then the entire article is invalid. is that commonly seen on Wikipedia? the overarching narrative of this article is that an "election denial movement" exists, and several reliable sources explicitly say so and discuss the phenomenon in a variety of perspectives and contexts. can you demonstrate there is an overarching "A and B, therefore, C" of synth here? can you demonstrate that synth exists in even an isolated case in the article, like a sentence or paragraph? soibangla (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the contagion has spread to state level races, and to other countries. It is the subject of journalistic and scholarly analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thus far editors have asserted the article is synth, OR, biased, POV, soapbox, a college essay, makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites, and propose[s] an expansive definition that none of [the sources] directly support, though the article contains several reliable sources that directly and explicitly reference "election denial movement" as a defined term. Editors have thrown the book at the article. I have asked three times for editors to provide concrete evidence to support these characterizations, yet none has been forthcoming. Nothing.Where's the beef?soibangla (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any admin will delete this article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems an odd justification for keeping an article that's now called Election denial movement in the United States. I'm also not sure what "both" means here, as this is a discussion about a single article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable concept that has, at this point, extended beyond denying just the 2020 results. XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since opinion is divided and the discussion is still very active, I'm relisting this discussion again. Due to some complaints about participants judging this article based on its current condition versus the state is was at the time of nomination, I've temporarily reverted the article back to its original condition. By looking at my edit, you can see the entirety of the changes made. I've never taken this bold action before when reviewing an AFD discussion but I do see my edit as a temporary reversion that can be undone when this AFD is closed. I encourage those seeking deletion of this article to respond to questions posed to them about specific problems that exist or assert that the entire article is irredeemable. Because I've taken a bold action that some might view as problematic, I will not be closing this AFD discussion. I should also add that this article, unfortunately, has been moved during this discussion so its current name is Election denial movement in the United States. Moving during an AFD is discouraged as it complicates relistings and discussion closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Liz and apologies for my earlier editing on the page.
Keep.
1) this movement pre-existed efforts to overturn the 2020 election (2012, 2016, arguably origins in birtherism challenging Obama's legitimacy)
2) other election results have been denied (2022 AZ, analysts predict this will happen in future elections as well...)
3) it would be synthesis to assume everyone in this movement agrees with the goals (let alone methods) of those trying to overturn the 2020 election results. Just because there is overlap and the election denial movement appears to be being heavily recruited from for attempts to overturn the 2020 election, it's not a 1:1 equation. Superb Owl (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not roll back legitimate edits that seek to meet criticisms and improve the article. Do not roll back to a previous version. It has always been normal practice to improve the article during the AfD process. Right in the notice it says: "Feel free to improve the article." In fact, the ideal result of an AfD is that the article is improved so much it is saved and the AfD is withdrawn.
Liz, please take note. Your rollback is totally against normal process and instructions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I stated that this was a temporary reversion and knew that I could be reverted. I've never taken an action like this on the hundreds of other AFDs I've reviewed. Besides this comment, I will not be taking any further action on this AFD discussion. LizRead!Talk! 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the best ways to save an article from deletion is to make necessary changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated by the nominator and all others stating it should be deleted.
An article that is proposed for deletion may be edited just like any other, provided that the deletion tag is not removed. Editing the article may be necessary to prevent its deletion. Making appropriate changes may help save it. One of the best ways to save an article from deletion is to make necessary changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated by the nominator and all others stating it should be deleted.
If Superb Owl didn't follow WP's guidance, then please advise him/her what should be changed instead of rejecting the edits that were intended to address the nominator's objections. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the rollback. The editor who opened the AfD cited three examples from the post-AfD version as justification for deletion, not as improvements that might move us closer to resolving this AfD. We all need to be reading from the same page. This is the best alternative to closing the AfD because it has become corrupted. As this AfD is now on its second relisting, and I still don't see anyone addressing specific examples of the primary complaint here, that of synth at any level, I would not object to closure. soibangla (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your restore prior to a response from Liz was premature, and I believe it clstrfks this process and I recommend an uninvolved admin/editor close it now. In any event, I won't participate here anymore. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above concerns. It’s also worth noting that this article’s title implies a very general coverage yet its body suggests that election denialism is a uniquely Republican concept that was invented in 2020. Adding coverage of other instances of election denialism in the U.S. (such as regarding Trump’s 2016 victory and perhaps even some fringe movements before that) would be a good place to start on trying to salvage this article. Sewageboy (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably re-title. There have been many movements to deny official election counts, and an overview of them is useful. Nixon and his allies doubted the 1960 election. Democrats had doubts about Republican wins in 2000, 2004, and 2016, and Republicans doubted 2008 and 2020. Denials of different elections do have different details and may need their own articles. However they have in common the ideas that election offices can report the wrong results, that candidates or parts of the public express doubt until they are convinced or enough time passes, and that legal appeals are explored. Many articles have similar broad coverage of many somewhat-related topics: Electoral fraud, Transport, Computer security, etc. Furthermore, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election says in the heading that it needs to be split into sub-articles. This could be one, so info from the bigger article can come here. If this grows to cover a series of denials of different election results, then denial of 2020 Presidential results may be a separate article. This kind of work needs to be decided in the talk page, not in a deletion page. Kim9988 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain strongly for KEEP. The main original complaint was the concentration of the USA and the new title completely solves that problem. Denialism is a major force in US politics and it now pertains to future elections -- that is a new and powerful phenomenon in US politics. As far as I can see no prominent Democrats support it, but it does have some support among the rank and file Democrats. Polls show lots of independents do support it so its is not exclusively a GOP issue. Here is a 2023 scholarly study finding deep roots : "Among Republicans, conspiracism has a potent effect on embracing election denialism, followed by racial resentment. Among independents, the strongest influences on denialism are Christian nationalism and racial resentment. And, although election denialism is rare among Democrats, what variation does exist is mostly explained by levels of racial resentment." [source: Charles Stewart III, "Public Opinion Roots of Election Denialism" (January 4, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4318153 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4318153] (I am adding this quote to the article). Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that all instances of someone saying an election was fraudulent or stolen should be in this article. If it is, then its a list article that should be titled "List of disputed elections in the United States" or something similar. This article should be solely about the Republican efforts led by Donald Trump since 2020, and the title should be something like "Republican Party election denial movement". At this point, this AfD has gone severely off the rails, the article is now much worse off (opposite of what AfD is supposed to do) and a bit of the old WP:TNT might be needed to get it back on track. Although I do still think this article is needed and can take some word count off Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. For example, the "background" section of that article could be condensed there and details put here instead. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. That article needs serious work as well. You could definitely expand that to cover other elections. You could have presidential elections as a heading and the individual elections as subheadings. Then you can have congress, governor, and whatever else. Anyway I think this furthers my point this article should only be about the current Republican Party efforts to deny the legitimacy of elections and voting. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on electoral fraud, transport and computer security, but notably we don't have articles called electoral fraud movement, transport movement or computer security movement. Election denial exists (bracketing the question of whether it's a notable phenomenon), but this article makes the very different, and unsubstantiated, claim that an "election denial movement" exists. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, election denialism is a conspiracy theory that has been propagated by election deniers for many years. Unfortunately, election denialism is combined into Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and contributes to making that article too long. Like @MarkiPoli commented yesterday, that article should split (WP:Splitting) off its sub-sections about conspiracies into a separate article. But discussions about that article should be redirected to its own Talk Page. rootsmusic (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic that reaches beyond the 2020 US elections, even while the current content needs work. Ed[talk][OMT] 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholars are publishing papers about this exact topic. It's in the popular media. SNOW keep. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2020 US Presidential Election. this is a non neutral with Woke leaning point of view otherwise. The policy of wikipedia is neutral point of view
Keep. Reading through the nomination and following discussion, this is pretty clearly a content dispute, for which AfD is a poor forum. The dispute should be resolved on the various talk pages, where merging (or split/merging etc) can be discussed at length. —siroχo 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: editors should give strong consideration to a merge, looking at the unique conent in this article and its sourcing quality and how it will fit in the target. // Timothy :: talk 15:35, 4 November 2023 (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.