Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demographics of Swords

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 redirect‎ to Swords, Dublin. While consensus is to delete rather than merge this, this is a viable ATD with the history preserved should consensus change. Star Mississippi 02:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Swords

[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)

A lot of this article was based on an argument that despite what the CSO might think, Swords is in fact Ireland's largest town. I removed this POV, but I'm left wondering if the article is worth salvaging. It's now two censuses out of date. Will it realistically be maintained, and is it the level of detail suitable for Wikipedia? I don't see a benefit in mirroring the CSO data tables for a given town for this level of specific demographic detail, when pertinent ones can be referenced and footnoted on the Swords, Dublin page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With appreciation to the nominator for fixing the NPOV issue and raising the quality concern, Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF as the combined articles would be well over 7000 words including the tables. As for out of date, it's marked as 2011 and verifiable, and we can consider WP:PRESERVE. I'm not sure at what point I would be willing to ignore all rules with such an article, but I don't think deletion would improve the encyclopedia at the moment so I'm not there yet. (Also keep in mind deletion removes history, a WP:BOLD merge that improves the main article by linking effectively would be preferable for future editors who might want to remake this article, but for purposes of AFD I'll just stick with my keep !vote above) —siro χ o 10:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Swords, Dublin. This is barely an article, it's an infodump of mostly irrelevant numbers that belong in a government census, not Wikipedia.Permanent private households by sewerage facility?Number of households with a personal computer? Really? 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. I would recommend linking to the cenusus websites and merging the most significant datapoints, but this is not the sort of statistics we need to compile here, let alone in a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 12:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS , are we going to have an article like this for every town in Ireland? Spleodrach (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. I do not see the argument for having a page/"article" on Wikipedia which is effectively a republication of a table (or set of tables) from the CSO census records. As noted by Festucalex above, the granularity of a majority of the raw data ("Carers by sex and number of unpaid hours per week", "Number of households with a personal computer", etc) is entirely unsuited to the project and its scope. Guliolopez (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Swords, Dublin, it would make a good demographics section. However, per the immediately above, we shouldn't merge every single part of it. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siro. Too much good info to merge, no urgent reason to get rid of the article. Last1in (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a repository for a massive stat-dump like that. Joyous! Noise! 19:08, 17 July 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.