Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the next Danish parliamentary election (by party)


 * 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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Danish parliamentary election (by party)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The only polls that are interesting are the newest ones, and those already can be found in the article about the forthcoming election. So the info in this article is redundant, and what is not redundant falls under the WP:NOT category of Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate source of information. User: (talk • contribs • count) 09:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it's essentially the same article:


 * Delete per nom. The election was called today and these figures will no longer serve much purpose. Valentinian T / C 11:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is not encyclopedic in character. –Henning Makholm 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Move title to reflect 2007 date. This is useful in-depth coverage. Everyking 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 2005 and 2006 figures have a major flaw, as the figures there primarily come from a single of Denmark's 5-6 opinion poll institutes. Without the similar figures from the other institutes, I don't see the point in keeping this list, since the pollsters are often in complete disagreement with each other, and Catinet isn't among the leading opinion poll institutes. I guess the leading pollsters would be Gallup and Megafon. Besides, every opinion poll institute publishes new figures regularly, often once a week, so many figures must be excluded even in the recent material. Valentinian T / C 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this list of indiscriminate information that may belong in a specialty text but is far too arcane and uninteresting for an encyclopedia. Biruitorul 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Valentinian. --Tikiwont 09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep we have similar articles for many U.S. elections and there is no reason to be inconsistent. I believe that the polls show th changes in national mood over time and are thus interesting and encyclopedic.  Eluchil404 02:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Historically interesting, possibly, but then why not include material from the other five opinion poll insistitutes? On a more general note, these polls are extremely unreliable since the institutes generally phone max. 1,000 people per poll and voters have around 10 different parties to chose from. Not to mention that the pollsters don't reveal the number of actual respondents, and that it is hardly a secret that several institutes "correct" figures by simply taking a guess at how many respondents refuse to disclose that they vote for the DPP. All in all, the statistical uncertainty is so massive that it is next to impossible to tell which way trends actually move unless a party makes a surprise jump by say 3% or more, which is a rare occurrence given the number of parties. One week, 2-3 polls say that the overall trend goes one way while the other 3-4 say that it goes the opposite direction. The actual figures from the election night is something that has lasting value, but I don't see lasting value in this kind of material. Valentinian T / C 11:37, 1 November 2007 (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.