Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrong winner 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong winner election

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a silly concept and title for an article; if they were the 'winner' then it wasn't 'wrong' (so long as electoral rules were followed anyway).

In STV elections, this sort of result is a feature, not a bug. The Uk elections are a bunch of local elections, so saying that one party won more votes overall while the other won more seats and calling that a 'wrong result' is also erroneous.

As for the USA and the electoral college; these results are also the result of intentional design of the EC system and we have an article on that already United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    01:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I found an article using this phrase titled "DO ‘WRONG WINNER’ ELECTIONS TRIGGER ELECTORAL REFORM? LESSONS FROM NEW ZEALAND" by Alan Renwick, but most of the other sources are from apparently partisan sources with names like "Electoral Reform" or "Make Votes Matter." The source referenced in the article seems to be one of those such sources that are of dubious neutrality.  I get a lot of results about electoral polls being wrong, but for this particular term, I found one article and a bunch of political action sites wanting various electoral methods to be changed. Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete borders on WP:OR or WP:HOAX. Not worthy of an entry in our encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - This reads very much like WP:OR... at best. Saying the “wrong” person won any of the listed US presidential elections is just factually incorrect. The winner didn’t win the national popular vote in the years listed, but that doesn’t make them the wrong winner, they still won the contest under the rules of the contest. You’d need to find a substantial amount of secondary sources calling the winner the “wrong winner” to justify this page, or at least the inclusion of any US Presidential elections on it. As it is, this is just an opinion that conflicts with reality. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be willing to change the name if you think there is a more neutral term for the phenomenon? Theofficeprankster (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The name for the "phenomenon" should come from the reliable secondary sources the article is based on. If you’re trying to describe something and don’t even know what it’s called, that seems to support deletion. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought I did know what it was called, someone else commented that it "isn't even a common name for this phenomenon". Also, why is phenomenon in scare quotes? At no point does the article state that the winner does not win within the parameter of the rules. Theofficeprankster (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe that it is usually simply referred to as "winning an election but losing the popular vote". In any case, mixing STV elections, US presidential electoral college elections, and first past the post local-national UK results does not result in an article. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I put "phenomenon" in scare quotes because there is nothing indicating that all the various elections you’re trying to link together are justifiably linked into a single phenomenon. As User:Insertcleverphrasehere noted above, you’re just mixing descriptions of different election types together in a new article. In the absence of substantial WP:RS actually describing them all as a single "phenomenon," which you have not provided and do not seem to have, I don’t see why I should grant you that a coherent concept unifying these various elections exists. Your attempt to link them together in an article without any WP:RS strikes me as impermissible WP:OR. Also, the article’s title itself describes the winner as "wrong", which to me does "state that the winner does not win within the parameter of the rules." You’ll need strong evidence this is a valid, notable concept defined in reliable sources to rebut that plain English read of it. Shelbystripes (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bizarre idea for an article if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2020 (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.