Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Comparison of UK election polling 2017 and 2019

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article made of purely synthesis material, constituting a self-made compilation of data from several sources in order to reach conclusions not supported by those sources. Fails WP:GNG (no coverage at all in reliable sources about this specific and indiscriminate compilation of 2017 and 2019 polling), WP:NOTOPINION (Wikipedia is not a medium to publish opinion pieces), WP:NOTESSAY (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought), WP:NOTWEBHOST (Wikipedia is not a blog or personal web page), WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) and WP:MADEUP (Wikipedia is not for things that some people may just think up). Plus, the article seems to have been created to put a reference of it at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, only because the author's edit inserting this same content there was reverted precisely out of OR concerns (diff1 diff2 diff3). Impru 20 talk 13:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Impru 20  talk 14:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Impru 20  talk 14:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The page has been modified to take account of earlier comments, and the above statements are no longer true. The chart displayed is simply a graphic of data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia, to show a comparision between the two elections. There is no 'cherry-picking' of data, and there is no calculation of moving averages which might create a window to display synthesis, bias, opinion, write an essay, or make things up. The data cannot be viewed as indiscriminate unless the data in the source Wikipedia pages is deemed indiscriminate. The matter is clearly of public interest, and has been a topic of discussion in, eg, the Telegraph. This page provides data to enable readers to form their own views. RERTwiki (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The chart displayed is simply a graphic of data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia You fail to understand that this is the issue itself. No, the fact that some data exists "elsewhere in Wikipedia" does not mean that you can compilate it on your own and presentate it the way you think looks best. That's outright synthesis. You need sources verifying this specific compilation in order for you to be able to justify such presentation and, by extent, the article itself. That The matter is clearly of public interest, and has been a topic of discussion in, eg, the Telegraph (of which, btw, you have still provided no source backing such a claim) does not justify you going around and making your own compilation of data. Plus, this by itself won't even justify the creation of a stand-alone article, since depending on the topic's notability it could be covered in one or two sentences within another article. How is the topic covered in sources? Does it show such a presentation of polling data? Does it merit a whole article? Note Wikipedia's policy on undue prominence, notability guidelines for article creation and so on. Plus the unchanged (and uncontested) fact that you have created the article to override the lack of a consensus at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election for having your data presented there.
 * So far, this is just your own compilation of data, and changes conducted haven't changed that (if anything, you're further ellaborating on the fact that this is purely synthesis material). Impru 20  talk 14:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not an article, put the chart in the election articles themselves maybe but it's just synthesis of data. Reywas92Talk 18:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be more than happy to see this chart where I originally put it in the 2019 polling page.


 * I can take on board that the move to create a new page may have seemed petulant. It may have been to some extent. I wanted to get the data up, but didn't want to engage in an edit war (that worked), and I could see that the idea that the comparison didn't belong in the 2019 or 2017 pages per se actually had some merit. So I was content to see it go elsewhere.


 * I accept that the first version of the page arguably contained too much original content. I don't think the new version does.


 * There is a page at the Telegraph titled "Boris leads 12 points polls chart shows entering danger zone" (sadly behind a paywall but with free access on registration) shows that comparison between the two elections is notable. In any case, the fact that the last election saw the Labour party catch up with the Conservatives means that one cannot form an informed opinion on current polling without understanding when in the campaign and how fast that happened. For example, if all of the change was in the last week, and the Labour party is now less far behind than it was at this stage, then the Conservatives might be in a precarious position. Sure, one can flick between the 2017 and 2019 pages to try and get a feel, but we have computers to do that for us. In fact, I spent a few weeks doing exactly that before I created the spreadsheet for my own information.


 * Lastly, these facts may or may not be common currency. However, that doesn't make them wrong. There is always someone first to notice something.


 * The facts as presented on the page may make uncomfortable reading for some, but the display of ALL available data cannot be construed as having any political bias, in my view. That is what the page now does.RERTwiki (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an entirely wrong vision of how Wikipedia works.
 * I wanted to get the data up, but didn't want to engage in an edit war It doesn't matter how badly you wish to "get the data up". If other people revert you, then that means that you do not have a consensus for your edits and that you must seek one for it. Rather than doing that, you attempted to circumvent such a lack of consensus by creating a brand new article without even caring to previously confirm whether it did meet Wikipedia's criteria for article creation. This was not a good idea at all and could have been considered nigh to disruptive.
 * I accept that the first version of the page arguably contained too much original content. I don't think the new version does You only changed the chart. It doesn't matter whether you use averages or just compile the polls without any trendline, the issue is not on how you present the data, but on the fact that you cherry-pick this data (i.e. from a specific time period in 2017 and from a specific time period in 2019) and bring it together pretending to show a comparison, while concurrently unilaterally considering yourself that this merits a whole chart, and then a full-fledged article in Wikipedia.
 * There is a page at the Telegraph titled "Boris leads 12 points polls chart shows entering danger zone" (sadly behind a paywall but with free access on registration) shows that comparison between the two elections is notable So it basically looks like the only source that could somehow justify your action is paywalled. You know, notability is not achieved just because one source makes a limited comparison (which is, btw, unable to be confirmed by users not registered at the Telegraph). Take some time to get you accommodated to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would say that The Telegraph source would, at most, justify a brief mention at either 2019 United Kingdom general election or Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election. Definitely not a full chart and much less a full-fledged article on such a topic, because you don't do such things from a single source making a loose connection that then you re-interpret and compilate on your own.
 * In any case, the fact that the last election saw the Labour party catch up with the Conservatives means that one cannot form an informed opinion on current polling without understanding when in the campaign and how fast that happened. For example, if all of the change was in the last week, and the Labour party is now less far behind than it was at this stage, then the Conservatives might be in a precarious position. Sure, one can flick between the 2017 and 2019 pages to try and get a feel, but we have computers to do that for us. In fact, I spent a few weeks doing exactly that before I created the spreadsheet for my own information. This is exactly what WP:SYNTH means. No, just because something happened in 2017 does not mean it will happen again in 2019. No, just because you think it is important does not turn it into important. No, just because you see one source saying A and another one saying B does not mean that you should mix it to get conclusion C. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If you want to state that A + B = C, then get sources explicitly making such a connection. If you want to create an article about how A + B = C, make sure to confirm whether such a topic is notable enough to merit an article of its own.
 * Lastly, these facts may or may not be common currency. However, that doesn't make them wrong. There is always someone first to notice something. And it is nice for someone to be the first at noticing something, but Wikipedia is not for this. Sincerely, you only keep confirming that you did this out of your own invention just because you thought it was a good idea. This is exactly what Wikipedia is NOT for.
 * If you want to get this data at Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election, get consensus for it. And if you don't get one, well, maybe you have to accept that you can't always get to have a pony. Impru 20  talk 19:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not possible that this is original research. It is a graphic of data which exists elsewhere in Wikipedia. There may be reasons for deletion, but that can't be one of them.RERTwiki (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simple. We don't publish original research, ever. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Circular referencing is explicitly discouraged under WP:V: Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Taking content from other articles, then making it up in your own way to write your own article without confirming if such a content is reported by sources in the way you present it, IS original research. Impru 20  talk 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearian - this is WP:OR. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:22, 12 December 2019 (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.