Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by 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)

WP:NOTSTATS - this article analyses the results of the 2022 Swedish general election down to område level (third level administrative division), equivalent to precincts in the US and parishes in the UK. We already have constituency articles and Results of the 2022 Swedish general election which analyses the results down to county and municipality levels (first and second level administrative division). Analysing down to område level is overkill. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this is overly granular. There's Results_of_the_2022_Swedish_general_election#Results_by_constituency, but the sources for this should be linked there. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Fair enough to debate whether this should be an article, but WP:NOTSTATS doesn't apply, as they are provided with context and in tables. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused as to why we'd have a stats article showing results for three parties only, out of the eight parties represented in the Swedish parliament. That makes no sense in the Swedish political system. /Julle (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP The charts are collapsed, which means they are not taking up much space at all. The three largest parties received 70 % of the vote, compared to just 28 % for the five minor which makes it an easy distinction, especially since coalition results remain. There is a potential to change it to a 10 % municipal threshold and add a fourth party where this applied, though. This is absolutely not inappropriate stats, this is a constituency-based breakdown of the results. I would have preferred to have it in the main results column like it initially was, before someone flipped it. Above all, after all of this work by myself for three months with no complaints, this sudden terrible nomination for deletion is highly disrespectful and inappropriate and whoever did that now rather than back when this project started should be ashamed of themselves. I can't believe this nonsense. I didn't even start this article because it fit into the main results article, someone decided to split the two and I didn't complain about it and now this? Merge it back into the main results article anyway, it's about halfway home so it's not going to swell to uncontrollable levels. If you scroll without opening a chart, this article looks like nothing in terms of a wall of text. At some point, you have to have sympathy for the good-faith work I've done with this rather than figuratively dropping the jewellry of a cliff for no reason after three full months. Like seriously, why? Glottran (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to finish this article in a few months and then be done with it. Like a once-in-a-lifetime project this and I won't even want to try and do something this intensive again so all I really want is for this to remain and be properly finished :) Glottran (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, we should retain the considerable content so that it can be used in other articles. I lean towards keeping this article, but I believe it is possible that the content may be more appropriate elsewhere, if an editor were to make a convincing argument for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred solution in the event of the tragic deletion, would be to put this back into the main results page like it used to be prior to someone arbitrarily splitting the articles without consulting anyone else. The thing is that while there will be 290 charts once it is finished, like previously mentioned it does not take up excessive space due to every chart being collapsed. What would be the best solution if put back there would be if it was possible to have the charts "double-collapsed" if possible, which would make them visible only if a) opening each constituency's municipal list, b) then opening the respective chart. I'm not a technical expert, so I'm not sure on how feasible that is though. Even then, I don't believe a list of 290 collapsed articles is particularly bad per se. The main thing for me is that my work should live on and enable me to finish it in due course, be it this year or until 2024. I have no plans to do anything like this again in the future, so it's supposed to be the pinnacle of my work here. If these are to be in separate articles, there are 29 constituencies, with 1 and 2 being larger than the others (Stockholm city and county). My suggestion would be to have it divided into 1-5 (Stockholm and valley counties to north and south of it, 33 % of votes), 6-14 (the south, 23 % of votes), 15-20 (western, includes Gothenburg, 20 % of votes) and 21-29 (mostly rural counties and 24 % of votes). Glottran (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it would be possible to divide it into three different alphabetically listed articles: constituencies named B-N (33 %), S (35 %) and U-Ö (32 %), although the simplest course of action is just to leave this article as is.Glottran (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The content is too much for the current page, and would be too much for the main results page as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, either the letter separation or by number into three or four parts then. Like Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (1-5), (6-14), (15-20), (21-29) or Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (A-R), (S), (T-Ö).Glottran (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glottran, you are ignoring the reason why the article was nominated for deletion, the granular level of detail, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether it's in Results of the 2022 Swedish general election, in an article of its own or split into several articles as you're now proposing, this micro-level of detail isn't needed in Wikipedia. If anyone is genuinely is interested in the percentages (not votes) obtained by just the top three parties at a precinct level, they can get it at the Swedish Election Authority website.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart is useless without listing each candidate, and that's part of the problem, it doesn't represent all the parties running nor give much of a description for anything. We need a detailed explanation for each, rather than a wall of text and colours. This is likely too granular for wikipedia, without further details given for each and every person listed/represented. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the singular category this article is in, I see 80 other articles about elections, none of which are at the constituency level. This supports the claim for removal under WP:NOTSTATS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the last two, all I can say is bad faith nominating and bad faith arguments. Just terrible and selfish nonsense all round. Some people truly only live for tearing down work of others. This whole article does not take up much reading room at all, purposefully being designed to contain a lot of data without becoming a wall of text.''Glottran (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is fine, but we need much more details than what this is. A political chart here usually has links for each candidate or political party, pointing to an article about them; from what I understand, this is only 3 of the eight parties than ran, and has no listings for any candidates that ran. Red and blue colours and a wall of text don't really offer much critical discussion or analysis here. This would be impressive if it had more details for each candidate and a discussion of local matters in each "parish"; otherwise, this isn't much beyond a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has a lot of interesting information and there will surely be readers looking at it to find out partisan results in local areas. Agreed with Oaktree that candidate details might be good, but an article having potential improvements doesn’t mean existing info isn’t good to have. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just plain data. No meaningful analysis. WP is not a collection of data, so delete. Cinadon36 08:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree and UtherSRG. This is classic WP:NOTSTATS in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 30 January 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.