Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian 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. A wider discussion on the merits of such articles may be in order elsewhere, but there is a clear consensus here that WP:NOTSTATS#3 currently allows for content like this to exist. Yunshui 雲 水 11:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2018 Italian general election

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This - currently en.Wikipedia's largest article - is chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If kept, it should be reduced to a summary of tertiary sources which in turn summarise the statistics. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow keep, because this does not meet any of the reasons for deletion, and because this seems like a deliberate attempt to game the system by trying to achieve through deletion what was not achieved through discussion and consensus at the proper talk page. There is absolutely no difference between this article and other similar opinion polling articles in the en.wiki, the only measurable reason brought for deletion being an obsession with the size of the article, which is not even close to a valid reasoning for deleting an article, and just because the nominator couldn't win their case through at the proper discussion. Impru 20  talk 11:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article meets WP:DEL-REASON for the reason given in the nominaton. However, this nomination does not meet any of the criteria for WP:SNOW. And congratulation: your comment meets WP:OTHERSTUFF. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are providing no rationale backing why this meets DEL-REASON (being the largest or one of the largest articles in Wikipedia is not even close to a reason for deletion) and why this does not meet any of the criteria for SNOW (i.e. in no circumstance would an article like this one be deleted just because it is large), nor why does this meets OTHERSTUFF (just because I mentioned other opinion polling articles? Then you are also OTHERSTUFFing yourself when comparing this article size with others. See the contradiction?). You should at least try to elaborate your arguments some more. Impru 20  talk 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What part of "chiefly a mass of data, from original sources, which would be better uploaded to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data files. This is not what Wikipedia is for" are you having trouble seeing? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seemingly, the same you are having to notice WP:NOTSTATS, point 3. Also, should I remind you about this? Where you clearly acknowledge you filled this AfD as a direct result of the article byte size? Do not try to make any excuses now. Oh, and the from original sources-bit is also false, btw: it can be easily checked that the vast majority of the sources are from websites reporting on the polls, not from self-published sources. So they are mostly not "original", actually (merely as a matter of getting all facts right, not that this would be a valid reason for deletion, actually). Impru 20  talk 18:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Split. Obviously a notable subject but the size of the article warrants splitting. As the largest article on Wikipedia, WP:ARTICLESIZE and WP:SPLITLIST most definitely apply. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is not the venue for warranting a split, but a proposal for deleting the whole page. Secondly, it is the second largest, not the largest. Thirdly, there will always be a "largest article on Wikipedia" for a reason of logic, so that alone is not a reason in itself for warranting a split. Other reasons were already discussed at the proper talk page and no consensus was reached for splitting, much less deletion. This is not the procedure for obtaining a consensus for split, and both of you can't just pretend turning this into a "split it or delete it" issue. Impru 20  talk 11:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the largest until a few hours ago, only because another article has increased in size. Being the largest on Wikipedia isn't the reason, but that there will always be a largest article only matters when there is no such thing as an article that is too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then that is an issue that is to be discussed at the proper talk page, where we've already seen that there is no consensus for it at its current form. Other proposals could have been raised and/or discussed that could gather a prospective consensus, or further input could have been requested if needed to sort out the issue. None of this was attempted. Instead, what we see is an attempt to circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures by bringing this to AfD just because the argument for splitting didn't win through the discussion. This is an outright violation of the spirit of both ARTICLESIZE and SPLITLIST, to seek a large article deletion as a whole just because some people do not like it being large. Impru 20  talk 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the various screeds you have posted here, you have utterly failed to address - much less counter - the rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you've surely failed to acknowledge the point of my comments altogether. I have repeteadly stated that this is not a valid rationale for deletion. You can't just pretend deleting an article just because you can't get a consensus for its splitting in the article's talk page. Just like you attempt to reply to comments from others with an effortless "you have utterly failed to address the rationale for deletion", I'll rather point to you that it is you who have failed to propose a valid rationale for deletion. It is not me who filed this AfD, but you. It is not up to me to convince others to keep the article, but for you to provide convincing arguments for deletion. So far, you are only arguing it should be deleted because of its size, proposing instead a solution (i.e. "upload it to Commons as spreadsheet-compatible CSV data") that you did not even care proposing at the talk page discussion (in fact, you have been mostly absent from that discussion in the first place). So far, you have only shown a willingness to game the system by circumventing consensus and to try to get rid of this article with as little effort from your part as possible. Impru 20  talk 16:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Split" is not a valid reply to the AfD request, and I find it misleading. I suggest you review your statement and either !vote for "keep" or "delete" or any other reply to the question "Should this article be deleted?", or just comment and not vote. The discussion about the split of the article is done in the article's talk page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion can reach any conclusion that it chooses to. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep without reducing its size. Totally agree with User:Impru20. --Checco (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and like Impru20, you have not addressed the rationale for deletion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously fails WP:NOTSTATS and the data is ephemeral too – we don't need polls and projections once we have the actual result. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You do acknowledge that WP:NOTSTATS, point 3 actually contradicts your own claim by bringing Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 (i.e. opinion polling articles) as a valid example of stand-alone lists, as well as clearly stating that statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (i.e. exactly what is done with opinion polling articles), right? Further, the argument you propose is surprising: no one would argue that List of World War II battles should be removed just because such data is "ephemeral" and since we know the actual result of the war. Impru 20  talk 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Impru20 makes a interesting point. The 2012 US example is clearly a statistical appendix without any significant narrative or analysis, contrary to the text of WP:NOT and yet there it is.  This demonstrates the incoherence of WP:NOT, to my mind – it has long seemed to be a compilation of arbitrary likes and dislikes.  We'll have to look at that history of that section to understand how this happened but I'm supposing that the original prohibition of WP:RAWDATA has been nobbled by a psephology wonk.  From a policy POV, I'll have to switch to WP:OR.  If you're compiling raw data and then using that as the statistical support for separate summary analysis then that's too much like original research. Andrew D. (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Much to the contrary, actually. WP:NOTSTATS does not require "narrative or analysis" (as you say) but context or explanation, which is not the same. Namely, that statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This is very clear and is not subject to other interpretations, and is exactly what is done for most (if not all) opinion polling articles (including the 2012 US one). I should remind that it was you who brought NOTSTATS into the fray, so I will not make any assumptions on whether the actual writing of the policy is appropiate or not because this is not the venue for it. It should be noted that, as of currently, a massive amount of articles are abiding to that policy, so if you consider that the writing of it is an issue, it wouldn't be one of this article in particular but one affecting many others. The solution for that would be to achieve a consensus for reforming the policy, not for us to cherry-pick in a whimp (and against current policy) which articles should be deleted and which ones not. Impru 20  talk 19:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had a look round and see that there quite a few of these pages. The one of local interest to me is Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election.  Looking at this, it appears that:
 * These polling pages are built up ahead of each election. In the current UK case, we don't know when that will be as a date has not been agreed yet.
 * The polling data is tabled and graphed to produce regression lines.
 * Political events such as leadership changes are added to the tables to suggest cause and effect and help readers "look for patterns".
 * There are disputes about which polls will or won't be accepted as "reliable"
 * I'm most familiar with this sort of political analysis on sites like politicalbetting, where partisans and punters engage in speculation and banter about the state of the parties and politics. I can see that it's quite fascinating for such people to track the polls, like following a horse race or the stockmarket, but it seems contrary to the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN.  One big issue is the supposition that the polls are reliable sources when, as many results show, they are not. Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are a lot of them because they have never been shown to cause any of the issues that now, as of suddenly, are seemingly presented.
 * This is not relevant, because the pages themselves do not make any assumption on when the next election will be held. Note that WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NCGAL, for example, do make provisions for next election articles to be allowed under some specific set of guidelines, all of which these articles do comply with.
 * Yes, this is a mere WP:CALC procedure, and this is allowed and does not constitute WP:OR.
 * I fully agree with you on this. I'm entirely against adding events to the tables because they may pose a NPOV and SYNTH violation, and have in fact fought throughout time to get rid of such events from these tables. However, while most opinion polling articles throughout Wikipedia do not include events, for some ones (such as Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election) a strong local consensus in favour of adding some events has developed.
 * Also agree with you on this, but I would like to note that, just as events, this only happens for some articles, not for most of them, because of local consensus (yes, the UK one is a very "special" one on these things...).
 * I don't think this goes neither against CRYSTAL nor SYNTH because, at large, these articles do not pretend to forecast the future or to interpret opinion polls (and when they do, such as by adding event rows or interpreting which polls are worth it and which ones aren't, it should be prevented), just to keep track of them and list them as they are very notable and encyclopedic-worthy ahead of the scheduled next election. Impru 20  talk 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Size isn't a make-or-break issue, and as argued just above, this is in keeping with WP:NOTSTATS, point 3. Polling data is of enduring historical interest even after elections, such as in historical analysis about whether the polls were reliable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Size isn't a make-or-break issue" - true; and size is also not the rationale given in the deletion nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Impru20's reasoning. --LiamUJ (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Query I'm not fully understanding the background to this but one thing I notice is that the page has equivalents in other languages – Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Persian. I can understand Italian interest in this but not the other languages.  Is someone being paid by the kilo for this stuff or what?  Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a site for data aggregation and drawing WP:OR conclusions from that data.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is explicitly allowed under WP:NOTSTATS, point 3 + no WP:OR conclusions are presented, so both of your premises for deletion are incorrect. Impru 20  talk 20:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why these articles exist but there are a lot of them. Category:Opinion_polling_by_country  D r e a m Focus  21:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does not contain only original sources, actually the majority of them are taken from other polls aggregators who list the polls taken from the pollsters. The fact that it is too long does not have anything to do with the deletion, probably only with a possible split or reduction. The article does not meet the deletion criteria, as per point 3 of WP:NOTSTATS, where the possibility of having aggregation of polls is specifically addressed. I agree with User:Impru20 that this AfD has been filed only in order to deal with the length of the article, which is ridiculous. Also, but this is not the main point, because my arguments apply also to this single article, it should be kept in count that there are infinitely many more articles like this one, and deleting just this one would just be plain disruption (see for example in Template:Opinion polling for Italian elections). --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be a more general discussion about opinion polls article, if the OP really means what they wrote in the AfD request. If this one has been filed for deletion, why not the others? This is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, because they are invoking a WP policy, that should be applied everywhere. My point is not about the relevance of the article, i.e. I am not saying "this should be kept because it is as relevant as WP:OTHERSTUFF". I want to stress this, because I am only invoking coherence in the policy application. So there are Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election, Opinion polling for the next UK general election, Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, and so on for many more countries and other elections. Also, going further, by the OP's reasoning we should also delete all articles that list data, like List of countries by GDP per capita, and all tables in economy-specific articles, like in Economy of the European Union, or Economy of India, and so on. Even List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is taken entirely from one original source, namely Rotten Tomatoes. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems odd that the nominator, although they have stated that this sort of article is unsuitable for enwiki, has not also nominated the plethora of articles similar to this one. --LiamUJ (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NODEADLINE. HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ritchie92. These articles exist as (to me, fairly natural) accessories to the articles on the elections themselves. Whether there might be some policy-based reason to eliminate all of them is a much bigger question than a single AfD and would call for a different venue. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The size of the article does not justify the complete deletion as a measure. I would be in favour of a split (between single parties, coalitions and seat projection?) since it's the second biggest page on Wikipedia. --Broncoviz (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By now I removed all useless spaces in the tables, and it's number 29 in the list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. One should consider that the government that ended in 2018 lasted a full five years AND, when compared to other countries, Italy has a lot of polling firms publishing their results. One needs only to look at polling results in Canada, for example.  It would be totally unfair to penalize the italian polling results for only these reasons. I am open to any discussion that debates the relevance of some of the polling firms included.  As already stated, the size of the article does not justify the complete deletion. I am not sure if including each year's results in its own template is an acceptable compromise.Juve2000 (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I sincerely don't see ANY difference between this article and articles regarding other opinion polls. Why this one should be deleted, while Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election is still there? They are both useful articles, so I strongly oppose deletion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick.mon
 * Keep per WP:IINFO #3: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. These statistics are too large to be placed within 2018 Italian general election so it should be in a separate article. feminist (talk) 10:53, 23 September 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.