Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2017, by parliamentary constituency

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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ah well, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. Apologies for wasting your time. — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2017, by parliamentary constituency

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Wikipedia shouldn't just be a repository for huge pages full of stats, with no accompanying explanation or encyclopedic context. The main article at United Kingdom general election, 2017 can provide an external link to the BBC's page of detailed vote counts, and furthermore all this information is already found on the pages of the individual constituencies, with explanatory text. If this is deleted, then I would expect the equivalent ones for 2015 and 2010 to follow. Thanks. — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that either WP:NOTSTATS or WP:NOTREPOSITORY actually apply. WP:NOTSTATS specifically allows spin-off articles with more detailed stats, giving Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 as an example. This page could probably do with some work, but if Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 is allowed, then this certainly seems to get over the bar. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A very similar article exists Results of the United Kingdom general election, 2015 by parliamentary constituency. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article passes WP:NOTSTATS. This guideline specifically states that: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. 650 constituencies is obviously lengthy so is not suitable for an article, but this is encyclopedic content as it is summarized fully in the main 2017 UK general election article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above noting these article meets guidelines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the common-sense grounds that this page is useful, as are the other similar pages. Although all the information can be found elsewhere, I cannot find another simple list: the BBC seems to expect you to read one web page per consituency, which is hopelessly slow. Alan-24 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am shocked to see this article proposed for deletion. This is an incredibly useful article, and not only prior UK elections but also U.S. House elections have Wikipedia pages with just this sort of information. I am strongly in support of keeping this article. -Gregory N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory N (talk • contribs) 00:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am one of the main contributors to this article, and I made it specifically because it is useful to see all the information about constituency level results on one page. I also meant it to be a spin-off of the main article on the 2017 General Election. I think the other comments here accurately demonstrate that this article should not be deleted. Watson39 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.