Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1987


 * 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 no consensus. The discussion was leaning towards keep, but still not out of no consensus. (non-admin closure)  J 947  19:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1987

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Useless fork of European Parliament election, 1987 (Spain). Should be merged there.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
 * Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1989
 * Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1994
 * Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 2009
 * Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 2014 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep No, the articles are not useless and are intended to be separate from the main article, like these:
 * Results breakdown of the Spanish general election, 2016 (Congress)
 * Results breakdown of the Spanish general election, 2015 (Congress)
 * Results breakdown of the Spanish general election, 2011 (Congress)
 * Results breakdown of the Spanish general election, 2008 (Congress)
 * And so on. These articles are created in full accordance with WP:SPLIT, since once fully complete, the tables alone would occupy way more than 100 kB (maybe even more than 200 kB), which would surely require splitting nonetheless (and it's absurd you even suggest to merge Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 2014 to European Parliament election, 2014 (Spain), when one is a 219 kB page and the other one a 77 kB one. What's the purpose for merging? Where do you see the lack of usefulness aside from just stating that those're useless?). I acknowledge that the main articles must be worked on, but that doesn't mean these ones have to be removed. I repeat, they're not useless; I've just started by those instead on the main ones in this case, but that doesn't mean they're the same. They're indeed intended to be separate, because they'd include a lot of tables and lists that're not suited for the main articles.
 * Additionally, as you may also easily check in their talk pages, those are listed as List-Class articles in the WikiProject's quality scale, and this is how this is meant to be since those are just purposed to be lists of data with links. However, the main articles are not meant to be mere lists. Impru20 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to WP:SIZESPLIT, it considers readable prose size, which excludes tables and suchlike. Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1987 for instance has a readable prose size of mere 96 B. The target article European Parliament election, 1987 (Spain) has a readable prose size of 385 B. Combined that is less than 500 B, way below even the lowest threshold of 1 kB in WP:SIZESPLIT. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1987 is getting larger as we speak, since I'm still completing it with info. I created Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1987, Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1989 and Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 1994 just about yesterday, so I still haven't really completed them yet (though I've already divided them in sub-sections, meaning I do intend to do this in shortly) since the info they'll include is too long for it to be made in a very short time-span. I didn't even have time to even complete those before you proposed their deletion/merging.
 * Uh, no, I mean WP:SIZE in connection with WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF and WP:STANDALONE.
 * You also argue this should be deleted because of it being a fork, but I don't see where this meets the definition of forking. Forking involves the creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject, and this isn't the case here. Here you have one article intended for the election itself, and then one separate article covering election results in detail as a stand-alone list article. This is NOT the same thing.
 * Also, since you speak about readable prose size, I'm not meaning this you say, but rather, as WP:SIZE says: "Usability considerations concerning the size of an article have been determined to include: Reader issues, such as attention span, readability, organization, information saturation, etc." In this case, it's obvious that all of these tables can't comprise the same article as the main election article itself. An election article is purposed to cover all issues related to the election, not only results, whereas the spin-off here focuses just on results. If you put all of these tables in the main article, you'd obviously be making this section to have an undue weight in the article, while also hampering the reader's ability to navigate through the article. I may understand the confusion with the newer articles, since they're still mostly empty and this issue may not seem so obvious. However, you've also proposed to merge European Parliament election, 2014 (Spain) to Results breakdown of the European Parliament election in Spain, 2014, and both of these are fairly complete. Do you understand the readability issues that could arise from merging these two? Just check it yourself, but I'm sure that what you're pretending here is just the opposite of what WP:SPLIT is actually meant for. Impru20 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can bring you some other examples of articles for elections where spin-offs specifically intended for election results have been made (I'll only add one per country):
 * Results of the Canadian federal election, 2015
 * Results breakdown of the United Kingdom general election, 2015
 * Results breakdown of the Turkish general election, June 2015
 * Template:State Results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election
 * As you see, this is not something unusual to do when the info on election results is too abundant to include all of it in the main article. Indeed, elections not having a separate article (or articles) like those is not because they've merged the data together, but because they don't show a fully detailed breakdown of results. But when this has been done, customary practice and Wikipedia policy seems to support splitting those. This is also done for election opinion polling, which is usually split into separate articles when many polls come out due to length issues and not left into the main articles. As I said, you seem to have mistaken this for a fork but this actually isn't, since this is not the same subject, but rather, a sub-section of it requiring for in-depth coverage not allowed by the main article. Impru20 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia already has too many tables and graphs. Where they explicate and improve prose, graphics are useful. Entire standalone articles of graphics and tables, no matter how interesting or useful, aren't encyclopedic. It's article editing for editing's sake just because we have the numbers at hand. I'd support deletion of all the examples Impru20 points out because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here we were not talking about outright removal of the data (much less of all these articles), but just whether these specific articles should deserve a separate article or not in light than the main articles for European elections in Spain are, as of yet, still poorly developed. The data's validity itself is not questioned, and arguing to remove all of it and also to remove any similar articles just because "Wikipedia has too many tables and graphs" is not a valid reason. There're a LOT of articles in many areas we would've to remove if we're to abide to your restrictive interpretation of WP:NOTSTATS (opinion polling articles would also fall under this category, yet WP:NOTSTATS#3 actually establishes that those should be split from the main article when too lengthy). Btw, I think you actually misinterpreted what I was actually doing when referring to other articles. I was not arguing that "this should exist because other stuff like this exist", but I was arguing that this should be done "this way" just like it's done in other places. It's not "if", but "how". I can't see how election results are not valid data to be included in Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep these articles could use more prose, but there is a lot of valuable information. Plenty of other articles with similar scope exist for other countries and elections.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep We need more prose in election articles, but that's not a reason to delete accurate, sourced information that is of value. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful to European Parliament election, 1987 (Spain), though the map is there already. Pointless duplication.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Peterkingiron merging would cause two main issues: 1. It would make it harder to edit the main article due to the sheer size of the data available (167 kB in this article alone), and 2. It would cause an undue weight problem, given that the European Parliament election, 1987 (Spain) is about the election in general and the data shown here is about the regional breakdown of results only (see WP:SPINOFF). Unless you propose to remove the data, I think there's little choice but for it to be left in its own article to prevent causing conflicts (as well as to allow a more detailed presentation of such information). Impru20 (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  04:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why do the results need to be broken down on a regional basis anyway? Wasn't this election, like other Spanish elections to the European Parliament, held on a nationwide basis rather than region by region? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, because it allows for comparison with regional breakdowns for Congress elections as well as with regional parliamentary elections. On the other hand, because sources in Spain (and I mean secondary sources, not just the Ministry page) do frequently make such a breakdown of results themselves (check this, this or this, for some recent examples in 2014 and 2009). And particularly, this is always done for Catalonia or the Basque Country (given their quite distinct electoral behaviour). In Spain election results are nearly always broken down on a regional basis, given that autonomous communities are the first-level political and administrative division in Spain. Additionally, it is not that they "need" to be broken down on a regional basis, just as nothing is really needed in Wikipedia actually (why do we need to report on elections in the first place, for instance? No one forces us to do so. It's done because it gives information on autonomous communities that may be useful to users and because it provides for a greater understanding of Spain's electoral behaviours in general. Impru20 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 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.