Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Lancashire)


 * 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. Given the consensus here, United Kingdom general election, 2015 (London) and United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Edinburgh) may also need to be discussed at AfD. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Lancashire)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These articles are unnecessary forks from the United Kingdom general election, 2015 article. There is no special status to these regions in the election, not much about their politics that is different. The articles contain no citations specific to these regions or discussing these regions as particular areas. All the constituencies in each region have their own articles anyway, so all we have is repetition of data elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note the articles below are not part of this AfD, but were mentioned for comparison. Bondegezou (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, but then I suggest these should also be considered here based on the reasons given;


 * To my knowledge there is no special status for any area or even nation in a general election, so if that is going to be the criteria then all of the above should be folded into the main article. As for different politics, for instance Greater Manchester is even more different from the rest of England than Greater London is with 80% of seats going to the the party that did not win the election. Having said that i'm not sure a nebulous "political difference" is a strong enough reason to have articles on for instance Wales over any other subdivision, an article that also doesn't have any specific citations. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I would suggest Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept. In Scotland 56/59 seats were won by a party that did not contest seats in the rest of the UK. In Northern Ireland all 18 seats were won by parties not represented elsewhere and in Wales 3/40. Also all three areas have devolved governments, meaning that Westminster cannot enact legislation on some issues (eg Education in Scotland). In theory these means the campaigns can focus on different issues. In terms of counties - like Lancashire - and cities I think there is a much less clear cut case for retention of individual pages. Dunarc (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see the Edinburgh article deleted as well. It has slightly more content than the ones I have deleted, but the same principles apply. The articles for the four constituent nations have a bit more logic to them, as per Dunarc, with the London article somewhere inbetween. Perhaps we should wait for the outcome of this deletion discussion and then re-visit these. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would London be a special case? In fact the 2015 article doesn't even have any citations, let alone regionally specific ones. Personally I would prefer we discuss them all for consistency. I was waiting on responses first before tagging those articles. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why parties who didn't contest anywhere else winning seats suddenly makes the subject for that particular area notable, and why this is not simply duplication of the main United Kingdom general election, 2015 article which already discusses these parties. The Green Party of England and Wales did not contest a seat in Scotland or Northern Ireland, is that enough for United Kingdom general election, 2010 (East Sussex) to be notable because they won a seat there?  Respect won a seat in London in 2005, does that make United Kingdom general election, 2005 (London) notable because they didn't contest anywhere else? Why are certain regions being given preference over others when as I said before there is no formal distinction between any areas in a general election?  It seems a bit biased and doesn't seem like a good enough reason to accept duplication of the main article in those cases. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against further articles coming up for AfD, but one step at a time. Let's await this AfD and then anyone can start an AfD for the others, as they see fit, informed by the decision here. As such, ChiZeroOne, can you clarify whether you support deleting the Lancashire, Cornwall and Greater Manchester articles, or not? Bondegezou (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is, by the way, the advice given at WP:MULTIAFD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though above all I support consistency. I created the Greater Manchester page in part because it didn't seem inconsistent with the other articles discussed (indeed there are 2005 and 2010 pages as well). There are reliable sources that discuss these areas specifically such as BBC-General Election 2015: Greater Manchester's key constituencies, just because they are not presently in the article does not mean they do not exist.  I do not consider it a fork, none of the information is taken directly from anywhere else and contrasts with the results elsewhere. If I added this information to the main article it would create bias. As Content forking states "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."  I had intended to add further detail.


 * However if articles like this are considered forks I feel the reasons given so far are highly subjective as to what is and is not being kept, which is why I propose discussing all articles together. I would only support deletion if adequate reasons were given as to why some forks should be kept and others not.  For instance the results in the nations are just forks of Results breakdown of the United Kingdom general election, 2015. I currently haven't seen one that makes objective sense therefore currently I oppose deletion until we have an AfD on all the general election articles. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:MULTIAFD discourages such an approach to bundling: e.g., "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." Thus, it seems to me it would be inappropriate to have an AfD on all the general election articles. Let us consider these three on their merits. If we agree on deletion, it is probable that the other sub-national regional articles for this and earlier years will meet a similar fate. Bondegezou (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I would say to delete all the counties and cities from the mix. This is because all content has to be verifiable and meet the notability guidelines. I can't find any sources focusing on each county/city, therefore an article is not merited, per the GNG. However, for the individual countries, there is a clear case for Keep. There are such sources. such as  and  for Scotland. These national newspapers are enough to establish notability and therefore an article should be kept. These countries, especially Scotland and Northern Ireland have very different politics and political parties. I would suggest reading Politics of England, Politics of Scotland, Politics of Northern Ireland and Politics of Wales to see the differences for those outside the UK before commenting here; it should give some background knowledge about the differences. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, this is an AfD for the Lancashire, Cornwall and Greater Manchester articles only. Any other articles are not under consideration right now. Thus, TheMagikCow, your 'keep' for the constituent nation articles is not necessary at this time. Bondegezou (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's absolutely no need to give each English county a separate article for the 2015 General Election results. What's wrong with just creating a table for all of them and putting them into the main article? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This seems to duplicate content elsewhere. There may be a basis for an article which looks at results via constitutent country, but even them I'm not convinced. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all Unnecessary and pointless. Number   5  7  15:00, 12 January 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.