Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian legislative election, 2016 (Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr)

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 no consensus. Sort of a "soft merge" as there isn't really much of a consensus here for want of participants. I am taking Mccapra's last comment as indicating that they might have changed their opinion towards a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian legislative election, 2016 (Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr)[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)

Article covering the results of national election for a single constituency, which is unnecessary and largely duplicates the content of the article on the constituency (to which anything useful and not already included could be merged). Also nominating the same for the following reason:

For a similar previous AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Lancashire) (which actually covered several constituencies). Number 5 7 18:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I contested the PRODs on these articles. They are well researched and well sourced. Most of the candidates are blue linked so appear notable in themselves. I just don’t see what the objection is to these articles. I don’t think ‘not necessary’ is a reason for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: Election results for individual constituencies are supposed to be summarised on the constituency article itself (as most of this already is at Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr (electoral district). If having results articles for each constituency for each election was deemed acceptable, it would add >10,000 articles just for the UK for the 20th century alone. We're probably talking about close to a million articles if this was copied across all countries. These are the primary reasons why these articles are unnecessary, and there is clear precedent. Number 57 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. If this is the norm you’re applying I don’t understand why didn’t you merge the articles rather than PROD them, except that because Iran has large multimember constituencies, trying to roll all this up into a single constituency article would be unworkable. These articles may have an unusually high level of detail but where is the harm in that? It seems to me to be a perfectly good way of presenting information that would be hard to present in any other format. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - ok I see that I’ve missed the critical fact that the info is already there on the constituency article. My fault for not not looking. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (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.