Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election records

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 keep. no one aside the nom support deletion - no discussion on the article talk page, so close this one as keep JForget 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election records

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

This article is essentially a very large collection of trivial election records in violation of WP:IINFO. There are serious difficulties in maintaining it, which result in inaccuracies. If a particular result is notable, it should be noted on the constituency page with the result, and not independently. I am also nominating United Kingdom by-election records as it suffers from similar problems. Claritas § 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Clearly people are keeping up with maintaining this list. It's open for debate as to how useful this list is, but I certainly recall a lot of the events listed here in 2005 and 2010 were highly significant political developments. Putting the information on the corresponding constituency pages isn't nearly as useful because that requires knowing which constituency holds the record before you can find the information. I don't often use this argument, but these two pages are ones where I would say: if you don't like this page, don't use it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that this is hard to maintain but there seems to be no evidence provided to support this and the nominator does not seem to have been active at the article or its talk page. The main difficulty I see is that there are too many statistics and records being tracked together and it might be better to split the article into smaller pieces, each with a tighter focus. Work of this sort is best best achieved by normal editing in accordance with our editing policy and deletion would be disruptive to this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded rationale - There are several serious issues with the list. The first is that it claims to take into account only results from after 1945 (which is a fairly arbitrary point), and secondly that it actually doesn't follow that claim. The choice of which records should be hosted on the page is entirely arbitrary - I can think of plenty of possible records which do not appear on the page ("Highest percentage of vote"). The choice of records and the choice of which results can be counted towards the records seems fairly arbitrary to me. The article is in need of being split due to its excessive length, but there's no logical way of doing it. I believe these problems are insurmountable, but if anyone wants to show me to be wrong, please do. Claritas § 09:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same answer for all of those points: raise it on the talk page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you suggest ways of sorting them out, though ? Claritas § 17:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is not the forum for doing do. The correct forum is the talk page. It's sometimes acceptable to go straight to AfD when there's no realistic prospect of ever fixing the article, but when issues have previously been raised and answered on the page, there's no excuse not to go down that route first. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that there is no "realistic prospect of ever fixing the article". Nothing I've read on the talk page adequately defends the arbitrary nature of the article. We disagree here. Claritas § 17:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then raise them on the talk page. The contributors to the article cannot reasonably be expected to defend criticisms that haven't been made yet. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (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.