Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As per consensus previously established, articles relating to UK general election results in individual counties are not noteworthy in the scheme of UK politics. Cornwall does not have a devolved legislature like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so the results in the county are not of any significance. Furthermore, the articles are essentially a compilation of constituency articles, and including results for individual counties would result in potentially thousands of new articles - one for each county at every election.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

--Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see an overwhelming consensus for deleting all these articles in the Essex AfD linked. In favour of the retention of these articles I would say that many readers will tend to look for information on a county by county basis - particularly given the more transient nature of constituencies as compared to counties. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - one argument of the consensus previously established was of WP:OR, but the exclusion criteria of WP:CALC allows for this type mathematical calculations. So I'd say we'd have to examine the worth/notability of a grouping such as this. I'd say that the fact that the politics within Cornwall warrant a Politics of Cornwall article, with associated references (as well as others that are election-based Cornwall-specific, such as ), show a diversity that could only be captured with Cornwall-specific articles. Zangar (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose One precedent in Wiki does not make a rule, as you well know. Cornwall is not Essex, and has been pointed out Cornwall has a distinct place within British politics if not necessarily a separate status. These articles are not OR in the strictest sense, as they collate already existing information from external sources. Wiki is not the first source for this information. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with 2010 United Kingdom general election. The above comment does not explain why Cornwall has a distinct place within British politics. I would argue that it does not, and irrespective of the personal cultural identities, Cornwall is part of England as far as UK general elections are concerned, and does not have any other notable political status. By the above arguments, one could make a case for "2010 United Kingdom general election result in Yorkshire", which also has a strong cultural identity. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment one could indeed make a good case for such an article for Yorkshire, and indeed any other county. There are already articles for some counties, and at least one city. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment further take a look at Category:United Kingdom general election, 2010 for other similar articles. I am a little concerned that the nominator is going "one county at a time" instead of nominating all the articles at once. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I hadn't realised there were other counties besides Cornwall and Essex, and indeed I didn't know if it would be right to bundle Cornwall and Essex in together. This stuff is new to me. Should I add the other counties to this deletion nomination?


 * Also, it is quite ridiculous to have articles on a county-by-county basis, particularly given that counties do not have any significance in UK general elections. Having articles for the sub-nations where devolution now exists is understandable, though for counties it is not.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've now added the other articles for the reasons above. Apologies for not noticing these earlier:


 * These county/city sub-divisions are not notable in UK general elections. Media outlets usually only focus on results over the regions of the UK, particularly the sub-nations and London following devolution.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment and there are articles for other years as well, still un-nominated. Could I ask that this AfD be put on hold until Jonesy1289 has a chance to identify all the appropriate articles? I would also ask if he could consider as a courtesy mentioning the nominations on the relevant county Wikiprojects? I've already informed the Cornwall WikiProject. It might also be beneficial to inform the UK Politics wikipriject, as its members are likely to have knowledge and expertise in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst I appreciate you are opposed to the deletion of these articles, do you think you could help a little bit too? Clearly this stuff is new to me, and I am struggling to find all of these articles (which rather demonstrates the concern of having thousands of irrelevant articles all over the place). As for notifying the county Wikiprojects, well again, that's a lot of work - one for every county/city/other irrelevant sub-division. It may also lead to a bias in the vote since individuals involved in the relevant projects would no doubt favour keeping such articles - 'county nationalists', and all that. I have notified the UK-wide politics section as I thought this would be the most relevant.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've found what I think are the last of them:




 * Many of these articles are poorly referenced. There is also no consistency in the approach.


 * How does one go about establishing a policy on this matter? In my opinion the policy should simply be that sub-national sub-divisions are acceptable to write articles on. Indeed most media outlets already do this (unlike for the other sub-divisions nominated above).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Well done for finding those. But could I suggest that we don't list Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire here and you list that in separate AfD, as here we're looking at individual results for counties rather than candidates and the arguments for each will no doubt be different.
 * I'd say that the best place to establish a policy of consistency for these types of articles would be at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, but lets leave this until after this AfD, should these survive. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep all. Theres a tiny bit of value in these, not much though. They could be sourced but probably never will be, because its tedious stuff. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all These articles are not OR, they record the results of the UK general election, which by consensus is notable enough for inclusion. Wiki is not paper, so they are not taking up space. They are linked from each of their respective election main pages, and to each other. This deletion could allow the precedent to discontinue separate articles for Scottish and Welsh electoral history. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The above comment is a double vote by the user. Regarding the arguments made, well as stated throughout, articles for sub-nations should be kept as is commonplace in election analysis. County election results, conversely, are not documented by mainstream media, and they are thus clearly not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesy1289 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a double vote, however there are no delete votes at all, that should tell you something. Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all Quite simply put, all these election results are notable and encyclopedic. I think a deletion review should happen for that abortion of a previous AfD that strangely ended in delete.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Would be preferable to ask the closing admin to overturn to no consensus first, its a lot of hassle for a decision which he'd have taken in a few seconds. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Evidently the results are not notable - this is why Wikipedia has been the only place to collate the information. Indeed it seems to me that some county articles were created in response to sub-national articles - which are relevant in a post-devolution environment - despite the county articles not being relevant in themselves. It seems the county articles were created based on a misunderstanding.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. These pages do not carry significant amounts of information by volume and could easily be merged into the County pages under the common section "Governance". The information then being at the main article level is more likely to be kept up to date and the need for individual pages is lessened. Where these pages list individual constituency results in addition to the county summary, then these should already exist on the constituency pages and do not really need to be repeated. I do not totally agree with the proposers arguments on notability, as WP:Notability is satisfied in most of the guidelines listed, IMHO. That said, the last guideline, presumed, leaves these pages open to nomination for deletion. As previously noted in this debate, the fact that the Essex article reached a consensus does not automatically make it apply to all other similar articles.Rimmer1993 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for officially recognised administrative areas as per http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf Which could be added to many as a source.--Harkey (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep then merge into officially recognised regions. The quality and format of these article vary and some of the divisions are somewhat arbitrary. They also, in the main, lack the sourced analysis that differentiates encyclopaedic pages from collections of statistics. Having said that, this type of information has a place in the Project and I think that merging into regions provides the best chance of coherent and structured presentation with some worthwhile analysis. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep ALL articles listed in this AfD for deletion - Then perhaps merge into one consolidated article. The information is inherently encyclopedic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all and have a deletion review for the last one. There are 43 articles that begin "United Kingdom general election result in" .  You can find a list of elections year by year in each area. Category:General elections in the United Kingdom And of course such articles existed for other nations as well.   D r e a m Focus  15:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Change from delete to merge I actually agree with the suggestions above about merging these articles into regional articles. The county-by-county results could be given in articles which cover regions, and this is consistent with having sub-national articles (which could otherwise be described as regions of the UK).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall which I recently closed as delete. The reason being that the consensus was that Essex wasn't a sensible unit around which to discuss election results. To my mind there need to be reliable sources discussing Essex Election results as a unit. If there are not then the issue will be whether the actual subject is independantly notable of the nationwide election results and whether the content is OR or SYNTH. It strikes me that we actually need to address this across the whole set of articles. I'm not going to close this AFD but if I were, I would be minded to refer the whole subject back to an appropriate wikiproject with a request for a project wide RFC to reach a clear overarching consensus on what the best regions/areas to build articles around would be. Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The best regions to merge these into would be as is the case in the BBC election map. Most media outlets break results down into the constituent sub-nations of the UK, though some outlets do break the results in England down into the English regions. I am yet to see any media outlet give county results. I commented in the UK Politics WikiProject about the suggestion to merge the articles a few days ago now (see here).--Jonesy1289 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a few for Cornwall (this being one). Zangar (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Confirm that this information is already on the wiki in organised by other geographical units (it sure seems to be) and then Delete all. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 14 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.