Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 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 merge‎ to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. The Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keep ones, but the proposed merger received enough support to get picked as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep

No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep, but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the keep argument that it is an alternative version of the 2019 resuts. In that case it is a redundant fork, which is a WP:BADFORK and should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork that delves into far more detail than Wikipedia should go into for speculation on the next election. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not speculation for the next election- it's an estimate of the results of the past election, which has been reported on by several major news outlets. These results will be generally used by both news organizations and Wikipedia (reflecting that use within reliable sources), for purposes such as reporting swing from 2019 to 2024 results by constituency. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional election results are not "speculation" as psephology is a precise science. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>precise results under the new boundaries usually cannot be known as election results are not usually reported for subdivisions of constituencies. However, it is possible to estimate what the election results would have been by extrapolating from local election results for which more granular data is known

Sounds like speculation to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our position to speculate on what is considered "speculation", only to follow the practice of reliable sources. Almost all reliable sources treat the Thrasher+Rallings estimates as authoritative election results, for example, a Labour win of Beckenham and Penge in the upcoming election would be reported by the media as "Labour hold" rather than "Labour gain" thanks to Thrasher and Rallings having determined it to be notionally Labour in 2019. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ideally this data would be incorporated into the individual constituency articles, rather than be in a separate list, but as long as this has not been done, it is useful to have these numbers on Wikipedia. The argument that thisis speculation is not sufficient. These numbers are used by pretty much all reliable sources covering the election even if they are only estimates. Gust Justice (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge argument? If the information should be on those articles, a merge close would keep the article until the merge has been performed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list/dataset is useful, but the data are available at reference number 2 in the article: spreadsheet download. I don't think Wikipedia needs to host a mirror of these data (WP:NOTDATABASE). Malinaccier (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. While I understand why we may want to cover this, I just don't see how this sort of thing would be best covered in a standalone article rather than within an article with broader scope. It is important to keep in mind that WP:NOPAGE notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Those seeking deletion have argued that the topic is purely WP:SPECULATIVE or a form of alternate history, or alternatively that this is an inappropriate CFORK. Those in favor of keeping seem to argue that the data itself is valuable in some way, and should be presented on Wikipedia. I think that the data is valuable in the context of elections, and also that presenting this in its own article is worse than including it in a larger page with more context, such as could be achieved by upmerging this to my proposed target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would consider merge an acceptable AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2024 (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.