Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Constituency election results in the 1929 United Kingdom general election
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I asked for guidance about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom.

This article is overlong, and would ordinarily be recommended for splitting. However I think this article is not necessarily acceptable to keep. The summary election results are on the main general election articles, the constituency results have their own individual articles. This looks like an incomplete/abandoned attempt to create a series of summary articles. As such I think this, and any like it, should be deleted because it is collating and duplicating information already available. It is also noted that any corrections to individual constituency articles would not happen on this article, making this incomplete and inconsistent. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same problem; incomplete, unnecessary, too long:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Category:Results of United Kingdom general elections by parliamentary constituency lists links to pages for eight elections including this one and others also listed here. The list includes some of the more recent UK elections. There may be others linked to main UK general election pages. The practice of providing an all on one page presentation seems to have been replicated with other countries elections. The fact that not all UK elections currently have these pages should not be used as a reason to delete those that do. A good number of editors have contributed to this and other similar articles and it appears to have been updated in line with changes made elsewhere.The page has been viewed 159 times in the past 30 days which suggests it has value to readers. These are all good reasons to keep. Graemp (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * QUESTION. If these articles are kept, what's the point of having individual constituency articles? doktorb wordsdeeds 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Category:Results of United Kingdom general elections by parliamentary constituency lists links to pages for eight elections including this one and others also listed here. The list includes some of the more recent UK elections. There may be others linked to main UK general election pages. The practice of providing an all on one page presentation seems to have been replicated with other countries elections. The fact that not all UK elections currently have these pages should not be used as a reason to delete those that do. A good number of editors have contributed to this and other similar articles and it appears to have been updated in line with changes made elsewhere.The page has been viewed 159 times in the past 30 days which suggests it has value to readers. These are all good reasons to keep. Graemp (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * QUESTION. If these articles are kept, what's the point of having individual constituency articles? doktorb wordsdeeds 13:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Duplicates the information in the individual constituency articles and (e.g.) List of MPs elected in the 1929 United Kingdom general election. The latter serves the function of highlighting the winner in each constituency for the election in question, and readers can click through from there to the constituencies to get the full results. Also, these articles are far too large at 400-450kb. Number   5  7  21:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, an unnecessary duplication increasing the work involved in making corrections - or more likely introduce the probability of inconsistencies where (what should be) exactly the same tabular information is changed on the constituency pages. The articles are large and unwieldy and most likely used as a click-through to the constituency or biographical pages anyhow. MapReader (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per unnecessary but would not be opposed to article of a similar nature being created and presenting the information in a different way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's no different in content from many 20th century articles about local authority elections, which repeat the individual ward election information in one p[lace. And I would say General Elections are unarguably more notable. We're hardly awash with election articles prior to the internet age. It's hardly going to require much maintenance because it's a fixed event and the facts won't change. Sionk (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is a touch misleading or misunderstood. The local authority election articles would be oversized were they showing each and every result from across the country. They are displayed (in some cases; Lancashire County Council results most recently are summarised and I think I'll be doing the same for Preston this year) as the results for each council as separate articles, whilst these nominated pages show results for the entire country. The facts might not change unless, say, a typo fixed in Somewhere South UK Parliament constituency is not fixed here. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're misunderstanding me. Where we have local authority election pages with, say, 70 ward results we're not planning to delete them because they're too long, or because they repeat some stuff which is also available elsewhere in another format. It seems a tenuous reason to raise this General Election list article at AfD. Sionk (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment the problem with article length, and potential for problems over inconsistency with constituency articles, could be fixed by creating a separate article just for each results table, and transcluding it to the articles on both the general election and the individual constituency. In that way any amendment or correction to the table would automatically show in both.Opera hat (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: as stated above the reasons are tenuous and a more wide ranging discussion should take place before a final decision. It’s our responsibility as editors to update properly Macs15 (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge all results into a common table showing the result for each party per constituency (and Wikilink to the constituency article); this should resolve the article length issue. --RaviC (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support table solution. Not sure whether this is really delete or keep, but these results are better expressed in a table. Hopefully a table that is much better created than the tables for more recent elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand the nomination rationale. I can't see anything wrong with the article.  If I was a user researching that election I would value having all the results in one place for me to consult, rather than only the overall UK result, or only each individual constituency.  So what if the same information can be found elsewhere? And the article isn't 'too long', it's exactly the right length to cover every constituency in the country. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in principle. The results summaries on the general election articles do not answer questions like "which Conservative MP had the smallest majority? Which seats went uncontested by the Liberals? How many independent candidates kept their deposits?" That's what these more detailed results articles should be for. However, the information here is pretty useless in its current format and, as others have suggested, would be far better in the form of a combined, sortable table. Opera hat (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly relevant to have the results for the election in one place rather than spread across the constituency articles (which aren't the same for every election either). I would encourage consolidating the results into tables like at 1928 United States House of Representatives elections rather than as countless election boxes. Reywas92Talk 07:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is very long and tricky to maintain, so ways to summarise the information would be good. But having more detail than the general election articles can offer, and collating it in a way which the constituency articles don't, has many uses. Warofdreams talk 11:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak delete. Full constituency results belong in the article of the constituency, not lumped into one election year article. This is supported by the fact only four general elections have been summarised in articles like this: Category:Results of United Kingdom general elections by parliamentary constituency. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep General election results are politically encyclopaedic if reliably reported upon. There's better ways to organise the information I feel, but there's no reason to delete these. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:25, 3 May 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.