Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

1458:. These pages do not carry significant amounts of information by volume and could easily be merged into the County pages under the common section "Governance". The information then being at the main article level is more likely to be kept up to date and the need for individual pages is lessened. Where these pages list individual constituency results in addition to the county summary, then these should already exist on the constituency pages and do not really need to be repeated. I do not totally agree with the proposers arguments on notability, as 187:, articles relating to UK general election results in individual counties are not noteworthy in the scheme of UK politics. Cornwall does not have a devolved legislature like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, so the results in the county are not of any significance. Furthermore, the articles are essentially a compilation of constituency articles, and including results for individual counties would result in potentially thousands of new articles - one for each county at every election. 1610:
subject is independantly notable of the nationwide election results and whether the content is OR or SYNTH. It strikes me that we actually need to address this across the whole set of articles. I'm not going to close this AFD but if I were, I would be minded to refer the whole subject back to an appropriate wikiproject with a request for a project wide RFC to reach a clear overarching consensus on what the best regions/areas to build articles around would be.
1508:. The quality and format of these article vary and some of the divisions are somewhat arbitrary. They also, in the main, lack the sourced analysis that differentiates encyclopaedic pages from collections of statistics. Having said that, this type of information has a place in the Project and I think that merging into regions provides the best chance of coherent and structured presentation with some worthwhile analysis. 907:
place). As for notifying the county Wikiprojects, well again, that's a lot of work - one for every county/city/other irrelevant sub-division. It may also lead to a bias in the vote since individuals involved in the relevant projects would no doubt favour keeping such articles - 'county nationalists', and all that. I have notified the UK-wide politics section as I thought this would be the most relevant.--
1630:. Most media outlets break results down into the constituent sub-nations of the UK, though some outlets do break the results in England down into the English regions. I am yet to see any media outlet give county results. I commented in the UK Politics WikiProject about the suggestion to merge the articles a few days ago now (see 1438:
Evidently the results are not notable - this is why Knowledge (XXG) has been the only place to collate the information. Indeed it seems to me that some county articles were created in response to sub-national articles - which are relevant in a post-devolution environment - despite the county articles
884:
and there are articles for other years as well, still un-nominated. Could I ask that this AfD be put on hold until Jonesy1289 has a chance to identify all the appropriate articles? I would also ask if he could consider as a courtesy mentioning the nominations on the relevant county Wikiprojects? I've
405:
One precedent in Wiki does not make a rule, as you well know. Cornwall is not Essex, and has been pointed out Cornwall has a distinct place within British politics if not necessarily a separate status. These articles are not OR in the strictest sense, as they collate already existing information from
1609:
which I recently closed as delete. The reason being that the consensus was that Essex wasn't a sensible unit around which to discuss election results. To my mind there need to be reliable sources discussing Essex Election results as a unit. If there are not then the issue will be whether the actual
305:
I don't see an overwhelming consensus for deleting all these articles in the Essex AfD linked. In favour of the retention of these articles I would say that many readers will tend to look for information on a county by county basis - particularly given the more transient nature of constituencies as
1334:
These articles are not OR, they record the results of the UK general election, which by consensus is notable enough for inclusion. Wiki is not paper, so they are not taking up space. They are linked from each of their respective election main pages, and to each other. This deletion could allow the
433:
Cornwall has a distinct place within British politics. I would argue that it does not, and irrespective of the personal cultural identities, Cornwall is part of England as far as UK general elections are concerned, and does not have any other notable political status. By the above arguments, one
906:
Whilst I appreciate you are opposed to the deletion of these articles, do you think you could help a little bit too? Clearly this stuff is new to me, and I am struggling to find all of these articles (which rather demonstrates the concern of having thousands of irrelevant articles all over the
1352:
The above comment is a double vote by the user. Regarding the arguments made, well as stated throughout, articles for sub-nations should be kept as is commonplace in election analysis. County election results, conversely, are not documented by mainstream media, and they are thus clearly not
1587:
I actually agree with the suggestions above about merging these articles into regional articles. The county-by-county results could be given in articles which cover regions, and this is consistent with having sub-national articles (which could otherwise be described as regions of the
511:
Also, it is quite ridiculous to have articles on a county-by-county basis, particularly given that counties do not have any significance in UK general elections. Having articles for the sub-nations where devolution now exists is understandable, though for counties it is
1238:
How does one go about establishing a policy on this matter? In my opinion the policy should simply be that sub-national sub-divisions are acceptable to write articles on. Indeed most media outlets already do this (unlike for the other sub-divisions nominated
184: 152: 1009: 1004: 1013: 996: 1147: 1142: 1151: 1193: 1188: 1134: 695: 690: 557: 552: 1197: 1055: 1050: 699: 649: 644: 561: 497:
I hadn't realised there were other counties besides Cornwall and Essex, and indeed I didn't know if it would be right to bundle Cornwall and Essex in together. This stuff is new to me. Should I add the other counties to this deletion
1059: 787: 782: 653: 1180: 791: 682: 544: 258: 253: 212: 207: 86: 81: 1042: 963: 958: 636: 603: 598: 262: 216: 90: 1101: 1096: 967: 774: 741: 736: 607: 1105: 745: 245: 199: 73: 950: 590: 1088: 1000: 728: 146: 1466:, leaves these pages open to nomination for deletion. As previously noted in this debate, the fact that the Essex article reached a consensus does not automatically make it apply to all other similar articles. 865:
These county/city sub-divisions are not notable in UK general elections. Media outlets usually only focus on results over the regions of the UK, particularly the sub-nations and London following devolution.--
992: 1184: 686: 548: 1046: 640: 833: 828: 778: 837: 381:
allows for this type mathematical calculations. So I'd say we'd have to examine the worth/notability of a grouping such as this. I'd say that the fact that the politics within Cornwall warrant a
249: 203: 77: 1631: 954: 594: 1176: 1092: 820: 732: 678: 540: 1038: 632: 770: 1401:
Quite simply put, all these election results are notable and encyclopedic. I think a deletion review should happen for that abortion of a previous AfD that strangely ended in delete.
241: 195: 69: 61: 1284: 885:
already informed the Cornwall WikiProject. It might also be beneficial to inform the UK Politics wikipriject, as its members are likely to have knowledge and expertise in this area.
946: 586: 113: 1084: 724: 347: 324: 1551: 451:
one could indeed make a good case for such an article for Yorkshire, and indeed any other county. There are already articles for some counties, and at least one city.
167: 134: 1692: 1668: 1643: 1614: 1597: 1577: 1537: 1517: 1496: 1475: 1448: 1428: 1419:
Agree. Would be preferable to ask the closing admin to overturn to no consensus first, its a lot of hassle for a decision which he'd have taken in a few seconds.
1414: 1389: 1373: 1344: 1321: 1296: 1248: 916: 894: 874: 521: 481: 460: 443: 415: 397: 362: 339: 315: 296: 55: 128: 1138: 472:
for other similar articles. I am a little concerned that the nominator is going "one county at a time" instead of nominating all the articles at once.
124: 1130: 174: 426: 1312:. Theres a tiny bit of value in these, not much though. They could be sourced but probably never will be, because its tedious stuff. 140: 17: 824: 469: 1369: 1267: 816: 434:
could make a case for "2010 United Kingdom general election result in Yorkshire", which also has a strong cultural identity. --
1679:
Confirm that this information is already on the wiki in organised by other geographical units (it sure seems to be) and then
1707: 36: 1706:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1505: 1484: 1492: 1656: 1357: 386: 1688: 1513: 1439:
not being relevant in themselves. It seems the county articles were created based on a misunderstanding.--
385:
article, with associated references (as well as others that are election-based Cornwall-specific, such as
1283:
I'd say that the best place to establish a policy of consistency for these types of articles would be at
1531: 532:
Okay, I've now added the other articles for the reasons above. Apologies for not noticing these earlier:
1639: 1593: 1471: 1444: 1365: 1244: 912: 890: 870: 517: 477: 456: 439: 382: 358: 335: 311: 292: 1340: 411: 160: 1488: 1527:- Then perhaps merge into one consolidated article. The information is inherently encyclopedic. 1380:
It is a double vote, however there are no delete votes at all, that should tell you something.
1684: 1509: 1410: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1607:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
378: 1664: 1555: 1292: 393: 52: 1229:
Many of these articles are poorly referenced. There is also no consistency in the approach.
1635: 1589: 1467: 1440: 1424: 1385: 1361: 1317: 1240: 908: 886: 866: 513: 473: 452: 435: 354: 331: 307: 288: 374: 1627: 1336: 407: 1459: 1335:
precedent to discontinue separate articles for Scottish and Welsh electoral history.
1462:
is satisfied in most of the guidelines listed, IMHO. That said, the last guideline,
1611: 1403: 1214: 1168: 1122: 1076: 1030: 984: 854: 808: 762: 716: 670: 624: 578: 279: 233: 107: 388:), show a diversity that could only be captured with Cornwall-specific articles. 1660: 1547:. There are 43 articles that begin "United Kingdom general election result in" 1288: 389: 190:
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:
49: 1420: 1381: 1313: 1485:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
1287:, but lets leave this until after this AfD, should these survive. Cheers, 406:
external sources. Wiki is not the first source for this information.
1626:
The best regions to merge these into would be as is the case in the
1266:
Well done for finding those. But could I suggest that we don't list
1270:
here and you list that in separate AfD, as here we're looking at
993:
2005 United Kingdom general election result in Greater Manchester
1700:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1554:
And of course such articles existed for other nations as well.
1550:. You can find a list of elections year by year in each area. 373:- one argument of the consensus previously established was of 1131:
2005 United Kingdom general election result in West Yorkshire
1177:
2005 United Kingdom general election results in Lancashire
679:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Oxfordshire
541:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in East Sussex
1039:
2005 United Kingdom general election result in Merseyside
633:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Lancashire
771:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Wiltshire
1548: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1026: 1022: 1018: 980: 976: 972: 850: 846: 842: 804: 800: 796: 758: 754: 750: 712: 708: 704: 666: 662: 658: 620: 616: 612: 574: 570: 566: 275: 271: 267: 242:
2001 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
229: 225: 221: 196:
2005 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
103: 99: 95: 70:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
62:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
1483:
for officially recognised administrative areas as per
1278:
and the arguments for each will no doubt be different.
947:
2005 United Kingdom general election result in Glasgow
587:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Glasgow
159: 1085:
2005 United Kingdom general election result in Surrey
725:
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Surrey
1545:
Keep all and have a deletion review for the last one
173: 1525:Keep ALL articles listed in this AfD for deletion 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1710:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1552:Category:General elections in the United Kingdom 470:Category:United Kingdom general election, 2010 932:I've found what I think are the last of them: 348:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 8: 346:Note: This debate has been included in the 325:list of England-related deletion discussions 323:Note: This debate has been included in the 1487:Which could be added to many as a source.-- 1285:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom 345: 322: 1268:Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire 817:Parliamentary candidates in Hertfordshire 429:. The above comment does not explain 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 427:2010 United Kingdom general election 24: 377:, but the exclusion criteria of 185:consensus previously established 1: 1693:09:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 1669:17:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 1655:There is a few for Cornwall ( 1644:10:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 1615:05:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 1598:17:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1578:15:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1538:07:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1518:02:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1506:officially recognised regions 56:03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 1497:23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1476:23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1449:19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1429:19:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1415:18:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1390:18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1374:18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1345:18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1322:18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1297:17:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 1249:16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 917:16:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 895:16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 875:16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 522:16:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 482:15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 461:15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 444:11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 416:07:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 398:23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 363:23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 340:23:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 316:21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 297:21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1585:Change from delete to merge 1727: 1274:for counties rather than 1703:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 306:compared to counties. 383:Politics of Cornwall 1534: 1272:individual results 44:The result was 1536: 1530: 1377: 1360:comment added by 365: 351: 342: 328: 1718: 1705: 1628:BBC election map 1574: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1535: 1532:Northamerica1000 1528: 1406: 1376: 1354: 1218: 1200: 1172: 1154: 1126: 1108: 1080: 1062: 1034: 1016: 988: 970: 858: 840: 812: 794: 766: 748: 720: 702: 674: 656: 628: 610: 582: 564: 352: 329: 283: 265: 237: 219: 178: 177: 163: 111: 93: 34: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1708:deletion review 1701: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1563: 1560: 1557: 1529: 1502:Keep then merge 1404: 1355: 1343: 1191: 1175: 1145: 1129: 1099: 1083: 1053: 1037: 1007: 991: 961: 945: 831: 815: 785: 769: 739: 723: 693: 677: 647: 631: 601: 585: 555: 539: 468:take a look at 466:Comment further 414: 256: 240: 210: 194: 120: 84: 68: 65: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1724: 1722: 1713: 1712: 1696: 1695: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1647: 1646: 1618: 1617: 1600: 1581: 1580: 1541: 1540: 1521: 1520: 1499: 1478: 1452: 1451: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1347: 1339: 1327: 1325: 1324: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1280: 1279: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1173: 1127: 1081: 1035: 989: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 922: 921: 920: 919: 898: 897: 878: 877: 862: 861: 860: 859: 813: 767: 721: 675: 629: 583: 534: 533: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 487: 486: 485: 484: 463: 419: 418: 410: 400: 367: 366: 343: 319: 318: 285: 284: 238: 181: 180: 117: 64: 59: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1723: 1711: 1709: 1704: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1608: 1604: 1601: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1579: 1576: 1575: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1533: 1526: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1479: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460:WP:Notability 1457: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1353:noteworthy. 1351: 1348: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1333: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1153: 1149: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1015: 1011: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 969: 965: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 931: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 918: 914: 910: 905: 902: 901: 900: 899: 896: 892: 888: 883: 880: 879: 876: 872: 868: 864: 863: 856: 852: 848: 844: 839: 835: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 793: 789: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 747: 743: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 701: 697: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 655: 651: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 609: 605: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 563: 559: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 537: 536: 535: 531: 530: 523: 519: 515: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 496: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 464: 462: 458: 454: 450: 447: 446: 445: 441: 437: 432: 428: 424: 421: 420: 417: 413: 409: 404: 401: 399: 395: 391: 387: 384: 380: 376: 372: 371:Strong oppose 369: 368: 364: 360: 356: 349: 344: 341: 337: 333: 326: 321: 320: 317: 313: 309: 304: 301: 300: 299: 298: 294: 290: 281: 277: 273: 269: 264: 260: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 218: 214: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 192: 191: 188: 186: 176: 172: 169: 166: 162: 158: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 133: 130: 126: 123: 122:Find sources: 118: 115: 109: 105: 101: 97: 92: 88: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 66: 63: 60: 58: 57: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1702: 1699: 1685:Stuartyeates 1680: 1659:being one). 1652: 1623: 1606: 1602: 1584: 1556: 1544: 1524: 1510:Bridgeplayer 1501: 1480: 1463: 1455: 1435: 1402: 1398: 1356:— Preceding 1349: 1331: 1326: 1309: 1275: 1271: 1263: 929: 903: 881: 494: 465: 448: 430: 422: 402: 370: 302: 286: 189: 182: 170: 164: 156: 149: 143: 137: 131: 121: 45: 43: 31: 28: 1605:Please see 498:nomination? 147:free images 1681:Delete all 1636:Jonesy1289 1590:Jonesy1289 1468:Rimmer1993 1441:Jonesy1289 1362:Jonesy1289 1276:candidates 1241:Jonesy1289 909:Jonesy1289 887:DuncanHill 867:Jonesy1289 514:Jonesy1289 474:DuncanHill 453:DuncanHill 436:Ritchie333 355:Tom Morris 332:Tom Morris 308:DuncanHill 289:Jonesy1289 1239:above).-- 1464:presumed 1399:Keep all 1370:contribs 1358:unsigned 1332:Keep all 1310:keep all 114:View log 48:. v/r - 1653:Comment 1624:Comment 1612:Spartaz 1603:Comment 1436:Comment 1405:Lugnuts 1350:Comment 1337:doktorb 1264:Comment 1194:protect 1189:history 1148:protect 1143:history 1102:protect 1097:history 1056:protect 1051:history 1010:protect 1005:history 964:protect 959:history 930:Comment 904:Comment 882:Comment 834:protect 829:history 788:protect 783:history 742:protect 737:history 696:protect 691:history 650:protect 645:history 604:protect 599:history 558:protect 553:history 495:Comment 449:Comment 408:doktorb 379:WP:CALC 259:protect 254:history 213:protect 208:history 183:As per 153:WP refs 141:scholar 87:protect 82:history 1661:Zangar 1588:UK).-- 1489:Harkey 1289:Zangar 1198:delete 1152:delete 1106:delete 1060:delete 1014:delete 968:delete 838:delete 792:delete 746:delete 700:delete 654:delete 608:delete 562:delete 512:not.-- 403:Oppose 390:Zangar 303:Oppose 263:delete 217:delete 125:Google 91:delete 1573:Focus 1504:into 1456:Merge 1421:Szzuk 1382:Szzuk 1341:words 1314:Szzuk 1215:views 1207:watch 1203:links 1169:views 1161:watch 1157:links 1123:views 1115:watch 1111:links 1077:views 1069:watch 1065:links 1031:views 1023:watch 1019:links 985:views 977:watch 973:links 855:views 847:watch 843:links 809:views 801:watch 797:links 763:views 755:watch 751:links 717:views 709:watch 705:links 671:views 663:watch 659:links 625:views 617:watch 613:links 579:views 571:watch 567:links 425:with 423:Merge 412:words 375:WP:OR 280:views 272:watch 268:links 234:views 226:watch 222:links 168:JSTOR 129:books 108:views 100:watch 96:links 16:< 1689:talk 1665:talk 1657:this 1640:talk 1634:).-- 1632:here 1594:talk 1514:talk 1493:talk 1481:Keep 1472:talk 1445:talk 1425:talk 1411:talk 1386:talk 1366:talk 1318:talk 1293:talk 1245:talk 1211:logs 1185:talk 1181:edit 1165:logs 1139:talk 1135:edit 1119:logs 1093:talk 1089:edit 1073:logs 1047:talk 1043:edit 1027:logs 1001:talk 997:edit 981:logs 955:talk 951:edit 913:talk 891:talk 871:talk 851:logs 825:talk 821:edit 805:logs 779:talk 775:edit 759:logs 733:talk 729:edit 713:logs 687:talk 683:edit 667:logs 641:talk 637:edit 621:logs 595:talk 591:edit 575:logs 549:talk 545:edit 518:talk 478:talk 457:talk 440:talk 394:talk 359:talk 336:talk 312:talk 293:talk 276:logs 250:talk 246:edit 230:logs 204:talk 200:edit 161:FENS 135:news 104:logs 78:talk 74:edit 46:keep 431:why 175:TWL 112:– ( 1691:) 1683:. 1667:) 1642:) 1596:) 1516:) 1495:) 1474:) 1447:) 1427:) 1413:) 1388:) 1372:) 1368:• 1320:) 1295:) 1247:) 1213:| 1209:| 1205:| 1201:| 1196:| 1192:| 1187:| 1183:| 1167:| 1163:| 1159:| 1155:| 1150:| 1146:| 1141:| 1137:| 1121:| 1117:| 1113:| 1109:| 1104:| 1100:| 1095:| 1091:| 1075:| 1071:| 1067:| 1063:| 1058:| 1054:| 1049:| 1045:| 1029:| 1025:| 1021:| 1017:| 1012:| 1008:| 1003:| 999:| 983:| 979:| 975:| 971:| 966:| 962:| 957:| 953:| 915:) 893:) 873:) 853:| 849:| 845:| 841:| 836:| 832:| 827:| 823:| 807:| 803:| 799:| 795:| 790:| 786:| 781:| 777:| 761:| 757:| 753:| 749:| 744:| 740:| 735:| 731:| 715:| 711:| 707:| 703:| 698:| 694:| 689:| 685:| 669:| 665:| 661:| 657:| 652:| 648:| 643:| 639:| 623:| 619:| 615:| 611:| 606:| 602:| 597:| 593:| 577:| 573:| 569:| 565:| 560:| 556:| 551:| 547:| 520:) 480:) 459:) 442:) 396:) 361:) 350:. 338:) 327:. 314:) 295:) 287:-- 278:| 274:| 270:| 266:| 261:| 257:| 252:| 248:| 232:| 228:| 224:| 220:| 215:| 211:| 206:| 202:| 155:) 106:| 102:| 98:| 94:| 89:| 85:| 80:| 76:| 1687:( 1663:( 1638:( 1592:( 1570:m 1567:a 1564:e 1561:r 1558:D 1512:( 1491:( 1470:( 1443:( 1423:( 1409:( 1384:( 1364:( 1316:( 1291:( 1243:( 1217:) 1179:( 1171:) 1133:( 1125:) 1087:( 1079:) 1041:( 1033:) 995:( 987:) 949:( 911:( 889:( 869:( 857:) 819:( 811:) 773:( 765:) 727:( 719:) 681:( 673:) 635:( 627:) 589:( 581:) 543:( 516:( 476:( 455:( 438:( 392:( 357:( 353:— 334:( 330:— 310:( 291:( 282:) 244:( 236:) 198:( 179:) 171:· 165:· 157:· 150:· 144:· 138:· 132:· 127:( 119:( 116:) 110:) 72:( 53:P 50:T

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
T
P
03:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
2010 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
consensus previously established
2005 United Kingdom general election result in Cornwall
edit
talk

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.