Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election[edit]

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

Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary fork from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, literally repeating what’s there. A couple of us re-directed to that article, but that has been disputed by one editor, thus bringing this to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a bad fork of content from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, that at best will duplicate material from it and at worst will diverge, either missing material that should be in both or causing material to be missing from the original article that should be in both. No discussion to split the source article has been had and this would not be the most natural or appropriate split if one were deemed appropriate. Could redirect to the appropriate section of the original article but an article title more consistent with other opinion polling articles on Wikipedia would probably make more sense for that! Ralbegen (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. If majority want to delete; would suggest moving this polling table to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland Titus Gold (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone with any knowledge of Scottish Politics knows that this topic is, for many purposes, quite independent of the wider UK situation (even although it's the same parliament). It has quite distinct political consequences - and that (and this is the only metric that matters) of particular usefulness to the reader. (I stumbled on this debate googling for Scottish polls for Westminster). The topic in the end is not the parliament, but the opinion polls themselves - and entirely separate polling is regularly done in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott MacDonald (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am keen not to personalise this discussion, however I have to question the referrers motivation being based more on spite than anything else and would ask that previous talk discussions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and especially the topics of 'Scottish Election Study' poll and 'Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general' election article and form a view as to the referrers motivation. I would also ask that you look at the efforts of 2 of these contributors to arbitrarily close down the article by installing a redirect. In addition by coincidence (i am sure) the article has had its categories referred for review. All of this in the space of the last 24 hours. Reluctantly I have to come to the view that they have not acted in good faith.
There is talk of this being a sudden fork, which is provable nonsense, the current article developed from a long standing article on Polling in Scotland for UK election and has slowly developed and grown to its present form, which aims to provide a neat clean and easy way to view the Scottish context, in addition it compliments 2 other unique Scottish Polling articles on Holryood polling (devolved parliament) and the long standing article on polling about independence
On to the topic created
Politics in Scotland is very different from that in the rest of the UK, be that in Elections for the devolved parliament at Holyrood, on Independence and yes how they view and vote on elections for the UK Parliament, these facts themselves merit it having its own article. If deleted this unique information will buried in the huge UK article. Wikipeadia is a very broad church and there are numerous examples of articles covering the same or very similar topics, on the Topic of UK polling there are already several that I know of, on polling in Scotland for UK election there is at least 3. There is plenty of scope for this diversity and Scotlands unique position deserves to be recognised.
I would argue that the article is better maintained with more consistent than the subsection of the UK article, linking to the key data provided by pollsters, the best information is always to link to the data tables provided by pollsters, and to remove links to less reliable sources such as social media and many newspapers.
Lastly why do the referrers have the view that only one all encompassing article is such a good thing? Leave the article alone and please stop this petty vindictive behaviour, you are not the keepers of all things polling in or out of Scotland and should stop behaving in such an arrogant and high handed manner.
There is sufficient difference in the articles that both should be allowed to continue and flourish. Soosider3 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be very helpful if we could concentrate on the content and policy rather than the motives of editors. This is undoubtedly a content fork, so the question at AfD is whether it is an acceptable content fork or else a WP:BADFORK. Looking at the content, it is almost an exact duplication of the Scotland section of Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. This makes it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As long as the same information is to be kept and maintained side by side this will qualify as a bad fork. It is the old bugbear of unnormalised data. Duplication of effort and inconsistency will creep in, and it is not at all clear how the reader is served. This could be repaired if the consensus here were to make it a WP:SPINOUT. The parent article can just point to this article, and the information there can be deleted. Should it, though? Surely when we are talking about the United Kingdom general election, the reader is better served by having all the information in one place. The article is not oversized. This one looks to me like a redirect but I'll hold off to see if there are good reasons for a spinout first. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would usually agree wholeheartedly with you on the matter of concentrating on the discussion, but in this instance the behaviour of the instigators of this has at the very least to be questioned as it brings into question the good faith principle.
The article under discussion stands on its own merits, polling in Scotland is separate and unique this alone merits it as a separate article and not one buried deep in another article, readers already have the option of looking at UK level polling. There is mention of merging with another Scotland polling article, the fact that this also exists demonstrates that there is a need and in fact it is desirable to have separate articles, or should we be looking at classing that one as a fork as well.
This article does not bother with a whole range of other items in it because its aim is to provide a simple clean layout that readers knows will deliver clear and concise information on polling in Scotland, the quality of the data it provides is of a higher and more consistent quality than other related articles, in particular the consistency with which it links to the most reliable sources of information on polling ie the published data tables of the polling companies rather than to less reliable sources such as social media, clients articles, newspaper articles, this gives a much greater depth of information removed from subjective interpretation. Have a look at the other articles, many of their links are to less reliable sources. The deletion or merging of this article would be a loss and particularly to the readers. My country deserves to better represented that being the 11th item in the index Soosider3 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soosider3 doesn't like various consensus decisions at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and wants their WP:OWN article. We are discussing a single election. It makes sense for the opinion polling for that election to all be in the same place. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus requires participants to be acting in good faith and in a sensible manner following facts where they are present. Regrettably your logic is somewhat flawed as it would suggest that only one article should exist on polling for the UK election, I'm sure that's not what your proposing. Soosider3 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest there should be one polling article per election, which is the norm for most opinion polling articles across Wikipedia. There is only one Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election or Opinion polling for the 2022 Brazilian presidential election, for example. (Of course, we should and do have separate articles for separate elections, like Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland (edit: or Delete, with the intention to transclude the original section at the UK polling article into the Scottish general election one) This article was originally that article, but seems to have been duplicated at some point. Nonetheless a fork. Not commenting on whether a Scottish "fork" of any GE article should exist considering that article also exists, with a generalised one being more worthy. I wonder if transclusion can be done to ensure the tables on both are the same? Plus the UK article is very long. DankJae 20:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended position, open to deletion, should this be a pushed for unclear consensus. DankJae 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of this article, it follows the fairly traditional layout with index box and information about state of parties etc, I tend to feel that much of that gets in the way of the core purpose of Polling Articles, which is why the Polling in Scotland for next UK election was created, to simplify and present a clearer less cluttered look. I have noticed a difficulty with maintaining the links to the data tables and would be happy for you to use the table for your article, not sure how we do that technically but and happy to learn. Soosider3 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland per DankJae. As per my comment above, this is clearly a content fork, and equally clearly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK which is a policy reason to delete. It forks Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election but the content is also entirely in the scope of (and already on the page of) Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. A case for splitting out home nations from the parent article can be made, but a further spin out of the opinion polling from the Scotland article is a much harder case to make. In any event, these are not spin outs as they stand. They are content forks. Some rationalisation still required even with a merger, but the merge will reduce the unnecessary duplication. Soosider3 argues that sourcing in this article is superior (without apparently noticing that this makes the case for rationalisation and data normalisation). I cannot see that the sourcing is very different here, but on the basis that some sourcing would be copiable from this page to the merge target, merge is the correct result over redirect or delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting argument, however I would point out that the UK polling article is in itself a fork from a previous and still existing article that covers the some matter but with lots of additional material such as state of parties etc in fact it has a very long history going back to all the previous parliaments back to the 1990s. Logically we should by your reasoning all merge into that original article. No I think the article under consideration here stands on its own merits, happy to link the tables into the Next UK in Scotland article but to basically eradicate it is is to deprive readers of options of how they wish to see the data. Soosider3 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what you describe are related articles. This one is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK because it contains exactly the same information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would correct you on at least one matter, the content is not exactly identical, both have chosen to treat polling from the Scottish Electoral Study (SCOOP) in a different manner, one follows the advice of the pollster YouGov and does not compare them with other polls, the other article doesn't. I would urge you if you have the time to look at the discussion on that very topic on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Scottish_Election_Study_poll
    I would also say that Polling in Scotland is very different from the rest of the UK and by that alone deserves to be in its own article. Soosider3 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case it is a WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. I find Sirfurboy's logic persuasive. Aslo, from a policy perspective, there is no current indication that the polling in Scotland is inherently notable separate from the election itself, nor from the UK polling if that is the consensus merge target. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is tangential to the AfD discussion, but covers possible sequelae. There have been a number of suggestions to merge with Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland as opposed to Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Either way will still leave us with the same material replicated at both those articles, violating WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I suggest we set up a transclusion of the relevant section at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (the more heavily edited article) to Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. Any comments anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. It'd be good to have the material kept up-to-date in a single location that has the most eyes on it (and, selfishly, where I can notice if things have been added so I can update the graph!) Ralbegen (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a transclusion can be set up, that would be fine. Failing that, it would be useful if the table were in one article or the other and then cross linked. But a transclusion will make the information more readily accessible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Soosider3, why did you remove the AfD tag in this edit? Bondegezou (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't or at least not intentionally, been working on changes to article thought I was doing so in my sandbox as had taken copy of site. Soosider3 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was working on it in my User page, certainly did not remove from article, or if I did it was not intentional. I think teh flag was referring to work im doing in user page. Soosider3 (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided the edit where you removed the AfD tag above. I am happy to hear this was unintentional. Please be more careful in future. Bondegezou (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge target articles as well as an opinion that this page be transcluded which is an editorial action to take if it's decided to Keep or Merge this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input.
Close the Afd
The discussion seems to have spun off at a tangent. Where comments appear to be more to do with Polling Tables between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland which has little if anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland, that discussion should happen somewhere else and not on this topic line.
So if we could get back on topic, the summary from the initial AfD was 2 for deletion, 2 for Keeping, a neutral, a comment and Merge options that were actually proposing different things on different articles so perhaps not reasonable to see it as a unified and clear view that leads to consensus.
The original discussion was unclear on the identified topic and therefore I believe the correct course of action is to close down the AfD, leave the article as it is as there is no clear consensus for change. Please encourage the unrelated discussion to be had somewhere else. Soosider3 (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
correction
"anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland"
should read "anything to do with the original AfD about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_in_Scotland_for_next_United_Kingdom_general_election" Soosider3 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for AfD participants to summarise the consensus. A closing admin will do that. But, for the avoidance of doubt, My merge !vote should be read as defaulting to delete if there is no merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh had not realised it was a single transferrable vote system !! Soosider3 (talk) 10:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clear bad fork of content from Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election which seems aimed at circumventing consensus shown in this discussion with regards to the SCOOP polls. Regarding the forking issue, I basically adhere to the arguments made by Ralbegen, Bondegezou and others. I will also adhere to remarks made on Soosider3's motives for keeping this article, in that it looks like this user is unwilling to accept that there is no support for their position to show SCOOP polls separately from other polls. The same behaviour is being currently exhibited at Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election, where this user is warring against everyone else to take these polls outside the main table. Thus far, there is no reason at all for keeping this article as a duplicate from the main opinion polling article, with the only difference being the separation of SCOOP polls. Impru20talk 16:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per above JM (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polling_in_Scotland_for_next_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1189442698"