Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

2001 United Kingdom general election result in Essex

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Election results for the county of Essex are largely irrelevant as MP's elected there sit in the British House of Commons, and there is no further devolved legislature for Essex which makes the results notable (unlike the results in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are of note following devolution). Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not WP:OR. It is not irrelevant, because the results themselves are notable (they are recorded  in numerous secondary and tertiary sources).t I understand the point about Essex not being devolved. However given that Wikipedia has an article breaking down the results into regional maps anyway, an article which drills down further is not of itself inappropriate. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The results for all English counties are recorded in numerous secondary and tertiary sources too - it doesn't make them any more relevant when considering the constitutional arrangements which currently exist in the UK.


 * I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons given above:
 * --Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The articles are essentially WP:OR - an aggregation of individual constituency results for an area which bears no relationship to the body (national parliament) for which the elections took place.   There may be a case for summarising all the results, for the different elections over time, in a new section at Essex, but these articles as they stand are unnecessary.  In theory, if the approach were applied consistently it would lead to the creation of hundreds of unnecessary new articles - one for each election in history, for each county in the UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * --Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The articles are essentially WP:OR - an aggregation of individual constituency results for an area which bears no relationship to the body (national parliament) for which the elections took place.   There may be a case for summarising all the results, for the different elections over time, in a new section at Essex, but these articles as they stand are unnecessary.  In theory, if the approach were applied consistently it would lead to the creation of hundreds of unnecessary new articles - one for each election in history, for each county in the UK.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because the articles are easily salvageable by adding sources. Dualus (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. For me the issue isn't about referencing (though the articles are clearly formed based on the information in other articles) but because having articles for counties is irrelevant in the scheme of British politics, particularly when considering devolution. Moreover, counties are an irrelevance in UK general elections as there aren't county-wide seats. Also, as noted above, we would potentially have hundreds of articles for each county for every single election, and there is no benefit to this.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as content fork of the per-electorate pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2011 (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.