- 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Dundee in the 1922 general election
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dundee in the 1922 general election ( | 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)
Nomination withdrawn (see below). Pointless fork from
Dundee (UK Parliament constituency) which amounts to indiscriminate information and so conflicts with the spirit of
WP:IINFO. An article about a single constituency in one general election is hardly
notable. Much of the content is unsourced and the rest has mostly been lifted from the candidates' biography articles.
NGS
Shakin' All Over
19:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (author) British elections are fought on a constituency basis and in many elections there are individual constituency contests that are notable, such as Smethwick in 1964 or Enfield Southgate in 1997. Dundee in 1923 is one of them for two reasons. Firstly it was an election where Winston Churchill was defeated (last time he stood as a Liberal) and secondly it was the only time a prohibitionist candidate won a British Parliamentary seat. All UK parliamentary by-elections in the 20th century are treated as notable. Individual contests within a General Election can also be notable, although the bar will be higher than for by-elections. The bar is easily cleared in this case.
JASpencer (
talk)
14:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just a as a quick note, I have so far found two academic articles on this particular election contest, one from 1970 [1] and one from 2020 [2]. This is a sign of continued interest that few other electoral contests within a General Election would garner. JASpencer ( talk) 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I don’t think this is a WP:IINFO violation (even in spirit). The information belongs in Wikipedia… somewhere. The real question is what is the best way to present it? - Should it be presented within a stand alone article, or within a broader article? That is essentially an editorial decision, not a matter of policy. There are valid arguments to justify either approach. That said, my call is that this specific topic is better presented as a stand alone article. Blueboar ( talk) 13:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JASpencer ( talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for another note on this, but there is a middle brow book coming out to mark the centenary of this election. Seriously, this is a notable election. https://www.waterstones.com/book/cheers-mr-churchill/andrew-liddle/9781780277899 I may have been rather more interested in modern political history than average or healthy as a child, but I had no particularly deep interest in Churchill and no connection at all with Dundee but I do remember two specific conversations with two separate adults about this election as a teenager (turns out one of these was wrong on a crucial detail which I didn't know until researching the article). Out of school. That was, erm, more than fifty years after the election. Yes that's slightly weird but this was an extraordinary election involving a person who was and still is a big deal. JASpencer ( talk) 21:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JASpencer ( talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. JASpencer ( talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note Looking at the US for a counterpoint at how elections within a wider election is treated. I went to look up the 1960 Democratic Primary in West Virginia (because it had a documentary) and it wasn't there, but there was 1960 United States presidential election in West Virginia and 1960 United States Senate election in West Virginia. Now neither of these are particularly notable elections and they are both quite cookie cutter. WV wasn't crucial in the Presidential race compared to Illinois and the incumbent won quite handily in the Senate race. Dundee in 1923 is different. The incumbent (Churchill) was defeated, he was already a national figure and later would become an international figure, he was out of Parliament for two years in which time he switched parties (twice), the swing against him was the highest of any other National Liberal MP in Scotland, the prohibitionists won their only ever British MP, in local terms it was a crucial turning point when Dundee went from a safe Liberal "seat for life" to one where it would be dominated by Labour for the best part of a century. The race also attracted not just one, but two academic articles wholly devoted to the Dundee 1922 race.
- So the notability question really doesn't seem to be can a component race in a wider election be notable - the American practice is that they are - nor whether this reaches that notability bar - the bar in American terms is very low - it is whether a British constituency election within a General Election has a far, far higher notability threshold than an American Senate election. I would say for a general rule like this that the burden of proof is heavily on those proposing the deletion.
- JASpencer ( talk) 11:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- We should not encourage articles like this, but this is an exception, in that a person as important as Churchill was defeated. US analogies will not be helpful, because senators do not become ministers, whereas British ministers normally have to resign if they lose their seats. The exception is if they are granted a peerage. Churchill had been a minister continuously since 1905, with a short break during WWI when he served in the army, so that this defeat was highly significant. Equally the election of a prohibitionist is significant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It does appear there is some academic work about this constituency and this election. Passes WP:GNG. -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not just academic work, but a forthcoming book as well. JASpencer ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Nominator's comment. Some good work has been done on the article since I first saw it. I think it now meets the required notability standards, especially with the Churchill connection. I'm therefore withdrawing the nomination (see above). Thanks and well done to all involved. NGS Shakin' All Over 09:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn ( talk) 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Dundee in the 1922 general election
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dundee in the 1922 general election ( | 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)
Nomination withdrawn (see below). Pointless fork from
Dundee (UK Parliament constituency) which amounts to indiscriminate information and so conflicts with the spirit of
WP:IINFO. An article about a single constituency in one general election is hardly
notable. Much of the content is unsourced and the rest has mostly been lifted from the candidates' biography articles.
NGS
Shakin' All Over
19:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NGS Shakin' All Over 19:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep (author) British elections are fought on a constituency basis and in many elections there are individual constituency contests that are notable, such as Smethwick in 1964 or Enfield Southgate in 1997. Dundee in 1923 is one of them for two reasons. Firstly it was an election where Winston Churchill was defeated (last time he stood as a Liberal) and secondly it was the only time a prohibitionist candidate won a British Parliamentary seat. All UK parliamentary by-elections in the 20th century are treated as notable. Individual contests within a General Election can also be notable, although the bar will be higher than for by-elections. The bar is easily cleared in this case.
JASpencer (
talk)
14:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just a as a quick note, I have so far found two academic articles on this particular election contest, one from 1970 [1] and one from 2020 [2]. This is a sign of continued interest that few other electoral contests within a General Election would garner. JASpencer ( talk) 15:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I don’t think this is a WP:IINFO violation (even in spirit). The information belongs in Wikipedia… somewhere. The real question is what is the best way to present it? - Should it be presented within a stand alone article, or within a broader article? That is essentially an editorial decision, not a matter of policy. There are valid arguments to justify either approach. That said, my call is that this specific topic is better presented as a stand alone article. Blueboar ( talk) 13:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JASpencer ( talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for another note on this, but there is a middle brow book coming out to mark the centenary of this election. Seriously, this is a notable election. https://www.waterstones.com/book/cheers-mr-churchill/andrew-liddle/9781780277899 I may have been rather more interested in modern political history than average or healthy as a child, but I had no particularly deep interest in Churchill and no connection at all with Dundee but I do remember two specific conversations with two separate adults about this election as a teenager (turns out one of these was wrong on a crucial detail which I didn't know until researching the article). Out of school. That was, erm, more than fifty years after the election. Yes that's slightly weird but this was an extraordinary election involving a person who was and still is a big deal. JASpencer ( talk) 21:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JASpencer ( talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. JASpencer ( talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note Looking at the US for a counterpoint at how elections within a wider election is treated. I went to look up the 1960 Democratic Primary in West Virginia (because it had a documentary) and it wasn't there, but there was 1960 United States presidential election in West Virginia and 1960 United States Senate election in West Virginia. Now neither of these are particularly notable elections and they are both quite cookie cutter. WV wasn't crucial in the Presidential race compared to Illinois and the incumbent won quite handily in the Senate race. Dundee in 1923 is different. The incumbent (Churchill) was defeated, he was already a national figure and later would become an international figure, he was out of Parliament for two years in which time he switched parties (twice), the swing against him was the highest of any other National Liberal MP in Scotland, the prohibitionists won their only ever British MP, in local terms it was a crucial turning point when Dundee went from a safe Liberal "seat for life" to one where it would be dominated by Labour for the best part of a century. The race also attracted not just one, but two academic articles wholly devoted to the Dundee 1922 race.
- So the notability question really doesn't seem to be can a component race in a wider election be notable - the American practice is that they are - nor whether this reaches that notability bar - the bar in American terms is very low - it is whether a British constituency election within a General Election has a far, far higher notability threshold than an American Senate election. I would say for a general rule like this that the burden of proof is heavily on those proposing the deletion.
- JASpencer ( talk) 11:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep -- We should not encourage articles like this, but this is an exception, in that a person as important as Churchill was defeated. US analogies will not be helpful, because senators do not become ministers, whereas British ministers normally have to resign if they lose their seats. The exception is if they are granted a peerage. Churchill had been a minister continuously since 1905, with a short break during WWI when he served in the army, so that this defeat was highly significant. Equally the election of a prohibitionist is significant. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It does appear there is some academic work about this constituency and this election. Passes WP:GNG. -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not just academic work, but a forthcoming book as well. JASpencer ( talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Nominator's comment. Some good work has been done on the article since I first saw it. I think it now meets the required notability standards, especially with the Churchill connection. I'm therefore withdrawing the nomination (see above). Thanks and well done to all involved. NGS Shakin' All Over 09:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.