Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 United Kingdom general election result in Essex


 * 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   no consensus. feel free to renominate in a few weeks, but there's not enough participation here to get a clear picture one way or the other. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1979 United Kingdom general election result in Essex

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As a result of my noming of 1983 United Kingdom general election result in Essex, I am nominating all the other (Year) United Kingdom general election result in Essex, largely for the same reason - a completely unnecessary list of the (year) election results in Essex. All of the information is already available at both the constituency's article and the List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election for the relevant year.

As a result of the above, I am also listing the following articles as well:  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1987 United Kingdom general election result in Essex
 * 1992 United Kingdom general election result in Essex
 * 1997 United Kingdom general election result in Essex
 * 2001 United Kingdom general election result in Essex
 * 2005 United Kingdom general election result in Essex DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  22:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Presenting information in a different way is perfectly valid. I note that the nominator does not dispute that the content is appropriate for Wikipedia.Dejvid (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete all per WP:STATS, since there's no context offered (such as how did this compare to the overall results in the nationwide election, or how did it differ from the previous result) The only purpose of having little snapshots of the percentage of votes in a particular location would be for comparative purposes, and putting them all on separate pages is a rather dimwitted way to present electoral statistics.  Certainly, there would be room to place these all on a single page, and if someone wants to merge them together into one article, I'd support something of that nature, but individually these are all pointless. Mandsford 02:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Suitable content. Agreed that merger might make for a more helpful article. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:STATS. No context given, only numbers without the bigger picture. Could be included within an article covering all general election results for that year, as long as that article is not just stats either.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all per 1983 precedent. We could only keep these, if we were going to have similar articles for every other county.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge all – The current organization is clearly of little use. However, the overall results tables would have some value if placed side-by-side in a single article in the same style as the constituency articles, or even better, combined into a single table of party vs year. – Smyth\talk  16:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note – Links at the bottom of the 2005 article show that there are similar series of articles for 7 other regions, though apparently only covering 2005 and 2010. This does not come close to covering the whole country, but I don't see that as relevant. If the pages are useful, then they're useful even if they only cover one region. Conversely, if the pages aren't useful, then extending them to cover the whole country would not change that fact. – Smyth\talk 16:29, 29 July 2010 (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.