Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the 2012 Hong Kong legislative election in New Territories East


 * 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   merge to Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012. Consensus appears to be to merge the 6 articles and to trim the table coding. v/r - TP 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2012 Hong Kong legislative election in New Territories East

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A table of opinion pollings of 2012 Hong Kong election in one area. It violates WP:IINFO, and there has been no replies on proposed merged which I initiated. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now if we're discussing one of the constituencies, than the same should apply for all the others, so I'm also nominating the following related pages:

I'm currently unsure whether to keep or to delete. On the one hand, this is very detailed data on single constituencies. If we'd added this kind of data for all constituencies of every single election worldwide, then we'd have to cope with unmanageable, hardly verifiable masses of data. On the other hand it seems like there was quite some media coverage even on the single constituencies, so it might be justifiable, given the importance for the Hong Kong people. Also, it's not fun to destroy the authors' work if unsure. We might want to refine our notability guidelines to avoid that much work being done to be possibly deleted later. --PanchoS (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment - These articles were split from Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 due to article size. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but even then it could have been decided to delete the opinion poll tables – not in an AfD discussion, but be anyone questioning notability, due weight etc. Here we have the opportunity to comprehensively discuss all aspects before possibly taking action. --PanchoS (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Redirect - Redirect with history to Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 or another relevant article per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge all to Opinion polling for the Hong Kong legislative election, 2012 Creating this new article would bring it in line with Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015, Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2015 etc. Number   5  7  12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Reply - All of those articles are completely unreferenced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which articles? Number   5  7  22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Reply - The six articles being recommended for deletion on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, every individual poll in the tables in all six articles are referenced with a link to the poll results (rather than an inline citation). Opinion polling for the Greek legislative election, 2015 is referenced in the same way. Number   5  7  08:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Comment - If we are going to keep the material, the six articles should be kept separate, as merging them would push the size of the combined material over 300 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Having had a quick look at the coding of the tables, they could very easily be slimmed down, as the majority of the code is totally redundant. As an example, I removed a lot of unnecessary coding in these edits, which reduced the size of the table by almost 38KB. Repeat x 6 and it's a reduction of almost 230KB. As a result, article size should not be a problem. Number   5  7  09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Reply - If this is the case, then all we need to do is create inline citations to prevent link rot. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 04:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2015 (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.