Deletion of 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

Comment: Ive had to fight hard just to remove some of the poorly sourced materials (materials from a dead blog).  If their were some indication of good faith, i would not say delete, but if editors are going to ignore  and  on the most obviously bad sources, then the chances of reaching consensus is low.  Consider this source http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm shadowbox by what standard is this an acceptable reference
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:PROVEIT)

Comment: It's clear to my that phil's nomination is not motivated by objective analysis, and it's unfortunate that some people were apparently persuaded by phil's misrepresentations in his nom. summary:  Multiple congressional hearings with public attendance well over capacity certainly demonstrates it's not .  And only the second formal objection to the certification of an electoral vote in the history of the country (the last one being over a hundred years ago) is certainly .  To give just a few examples of facts that contradict phil's assertions - off the top of my head.  if you're new to this, don't be fooled by the rhetoric.  read the articles and judge for yourself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NOTABLE)