Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 1992


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 1992

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 19:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is pure listcruft. The raw data and a much more elegant graph are available here on the web. What little discussion there is is already covered at United Kingdom general election, 1992. (After deletion it would be a good idea to re-instate as a redirect and protect it from re-creation as an article. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not listcruft. this article should be around mainly due to it's significance within the election. For a compromise the United Kingdom general election, 1992 text could be moved to this page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valuable in contributing additional information and context to the 1992 election. Indeed, if anything, there's a stronger case to be made for keeping this article than its sister pages from other election cycles as the 1992 election result was an unexpected repudiation of the polls, and led directly to the development of the 'Shy Tory' hypothesis in British psephology. Eloquai (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic isn't encyclopedic. I didn't check the refs because...the topic isn't encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How is the topic not encyclopedic? almost all pages that are for current elections have separate pages for opinion polls as well as most previous elections. You are trying to delete information which is very important for a reader to gain a context of the election and by deleting this page would mean people would not understand the election as much as they could.JDuggan101 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP isn't a repository of statistics, statistics by their very nature are only of interest to statisticians. A paragraph of prose explaining the statistics has been identified by the nom and is in the appropriate article. Your other articles exist argument is weak - most likely those articles need deleting too. Szzuk (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * However Wikipedia is here for information and even though this is data is also provides context for the public's opinion through out the time of 1987 to 1992. My other articles argument is not weak due to their being over at least 1000+ articles relating opinion polling.JDuggan101 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Before making the argument that a topic isn't encyclopedic, and therefore doesn't merit inclusion, you may wish to read this: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC schetm (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the full discussion before making out of date replies. I subsequently stated WP isn't a repository for statistics. Szzuk (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Opinion polling in and of itself passes the GNG. The topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and is therefore "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." schetm (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does policy state "Opinion polling in and of itself passes the GNG"? You say "The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". There are 4 references let us examine them;
 * 1) Gives the results of the election and is an article analyzing the result - its focus is not polling.
 * 2) Explains exit polls in general - not this election
 * 3) Gives the raw statistics - and does not explain why this topic is notable
 * 4) Gives the election results - its focus is not polling
 * None of these refs support the topic Opinion polling in the 1992 election. This is just WP:Synth. Szzuk (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course, the policy doesn't reference opinion polling as such. But, I assure you, the topic is indeed notable! I'll work to add the following sources in the coming days, but I present them here for your perusal:
 * 1) A peer-reviewed article in The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society about the opinion polling in the 1992 election, seen here: Public Opinion Polls: The UK General Election, 1992
 * 2) Another peer-reviewed article, this time in West European Politics, again specifically about the topic of the opinion polling in the 1992 election, found here: The 1992 British general election: Pollsters despair
 * 3) A popular level news piece regarding the election polling, found here: Why bother with opinion polls?
 * 4) A 100-page report by the Market Research Society, considered authoritative by the previous source I mentioned, found here: The Opinion Polls and the 1992 General Election
 * 5) A piece from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on the election polling, found here: Getting Opinion Polls 'Right'
 * Feel free to assist me in adding these citations to the now clearly notable article. schetm (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based upon these refs I'm satisfied Opinion Polling for the 1992 election is notable enough for discussion on WP. However I still don't believe that quantity of statistics is encyclopedic and they should be deleted. Once deleted even with informed prose discussion there will be only few paragraphs of text at most. So should we keep a separate article with a few paragraphs of text or put that information in the general election page? I prefer the latter because it will be easier for users to access - so I won't be redacting my delete vote. I accept the decision is no longer so clear cut so I will now leave the discussion to other editors. Szzuk (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Makes no sense to delete this article alone when we have opinion polling articles for all elections since 1987 (see Opinion polling for United Kingdom elections). We have opinion polling lists for almost all modern elections (see Category:Opinion polling for elections) and this is slowly being pushed backwards with historic data with articles like this one. Number   5  7  21:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Listcruft per nom. Consider merging some content to United Kingdom general election, 1992. Lorstaking (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Number57. Opinion polling in elections is a valid encyclopedic topic, easily supported by RS, and in cases where a spinout article is merited, is better spun out then merged into the main page. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But this article is only 28k bytes where as main article is also only 72k. Can you describe if there are issues with deleting and merging? Lorstaking (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Having nearly 1/3 of article content be polls is too much. And in this case, the long list of poll numbers would unduly add to the physical length of the page. As for deleting and merging, that would be a violation of Wikipedia's license (see: Merge and delete). Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep First of all, these sort of articles exist for all other years and other elections. So they'd need to be deleted in a set. I find these articles to be quite useful, though this one could be better done. It is sourced and polling for the UK is a valid topic, talked about in a set by sources - so passes WP:LISTN. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I'm not entirely convinced of the utility of maintaining articles about rolling variations in public opinion polling at all — noteworthy shifts in public opinion should be contextualized in prose in the election article rather than simply being depicted by a contextless pile of numbers on a standalone page — there are too many similar articles for other elections in other years and other countries to single this one out as uniquely inappropriate. In a more comprehensive discussion about whether we should get rid of such articles entirely, I'd almost certainly support the delete option — but as a one-off case, uniquely applicable to this one and not all of the others, no. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the prose, if possible. I'd be fine with a merge into the main election article, but there's so much notable data there that this probably deserves to exist on its own. South Nashua (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for its academic importance and work of Wikipedia as repository of Knowledge. This article is sourced and verifiable and is surely serving as reference material in academic works relating to UK politics. Also I don't see any benefit of deleting it nor harm in keeping it. So keep. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (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.