Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurovision Song Contest records


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Creator removed my PROD. Very few reliable sources. Presents little to no additional useful information beyond what is already available in each country's participation article. Includes non-notable trivia, against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, and violates WP:ICONDECORATION. Same content from the same editor was recently removed from the List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest page. If there is consensus for this to be kept, I would advocate applying WP:BLOWITUP. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ ''(kaw), 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ ''(kaw), 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ ''(kaw), 19:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Article clearly violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and the icons are purely decorative. The creator has recently changed flags to the EuroHeart icons across several other Eurovision articles, which have all been reverted on the grounds of WP:ICONDECORATION.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  10:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me what the difference is between an article such as this, and an article such as 'United Kingdom by-election records'. Red  v  Blue  14:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because,, all of the information on the nominated article has already been summarised in prose format on the main Eurovision Song Contest article. But I would say that United Kingdom by-election records would be against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK too.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a few things to respond to.
 * Firstly, I'm not sure that all the information on this article is available in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. In fact, a statistic about the exchanging of points between the likes of Cyprus and Greece might be quite useful for the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. Unfortunately, I can't find the quoted statistic in the source provided. However, there is actually no source at the moment for when those two countries are mentioned in the 'Political and geographical voting' section in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. At this point, I must say that I dislike the name of that section, owing to factors discussed on other websites (bbc.co.uk/blogs/eurovision/entries/18aa5cc2-0f94-3882-9c57-07fdec46dc5b).
 * Secondly, I think that it would be better if Wikipedia policies were applied consistently. So, if this article is 'in the same boat' as the 'United Kingdom by-election records' article, then I would suppose that it would be better if they were treated with a degree of equality.
 * Also, while I am here, and I realise that this is not the best place to point this out, but last year you moved a discussion about navigational boxes to 'Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision' in order to seek "a wider scope from members". I duly responded, but no action was taken. Seeing as you moved the discussion, I wondered whether this was on your radar, at all. Red  v  Blue  15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to the exchange of points between countries,, they are shown in the voting history sections on each respective [Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest article, based on the calculations obtained via the ESC Database and comes under WP:CALC (exempt from original research). Also the nominated articles contains icons within the prose which goes very much against WP:ICONDECORATION. As for your second point, I'm in the middle of the fence, as the UK by-election article is a topic of no personal interest to myself. So if the wider community felt that it too went against WP:NOTSTATSBOOK then so be it, but that would be a different AfD for whoever feels it should be nominated. In reply to your third point, that discussion resulted in a no consensus being reached due to a lack on participation, and has subsequently been archived.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, so a number of things have come up now. For ease of reference, this time I'll number my responses.
 * I mentioned the statistic from this article about Cyprus and Greece because you said that all the information from this article was already in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article. I wanted to point out that not everything was covered in that article. However, I used this particular statistic because I was also able to make a further point about it and the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article…
 * The main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article's 'Political and geographical voting' section mentions Cyprus and Greece. In doing so, there is no reference. What I was suggesting could be quite useful for the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article was for a referenced statistic to be used to illustrate that some countries may have voted for each other more than others. Using evidence to demonstrate a point is usually very helpful. As I mentioned before, I do realise that this article's reference for the statistic in question does not seem to provide the figure given.
 * I can't really mention the 'Political and geographical voting' section in the main 'Eurovision Song Contest' article without noting the fact that I think that it could be named better. This is for reasons discussed in the website provided above.
 * The icon decoration problem, in itself, cannot be a reason to delete the whole article. It is the substance of the article that matters, and if that is not a problem then the icons could simply be changed to regular flags.
 * I understand that you may not have a personal interest in topics such as 'United Kingdom by-election records', but, in relation to this article, I'm not sure that it matters whether it is a personal interest or not. You are proposing to delete this article for a reason that could be used for proposing to delete an article such as that. It seems to me, therefore, that if you support deleting one article for a given reason, then you should support the same action on other such articles where that reason applies, regardless of whether you're interested in those articles or not.
 * You may have determined that there was no consensus about the navigational boxes, but I fear that that may have been a conclusion that was reached prematurely. There was no indication that my proposals were considered, or even read. I do understand that I can't compel editors to reply to every contribution that I make, but the fact that the discussion ended with my involvement does not mean that there was no consensus, and that the issue should be dead and buried. I still find the template as it is hugely unsatisfactory. Red  v  Blue  00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been split off, but there is more content about Cyprus/Greece and similar topics at Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest.
 * See the above line; I forgot to sign it when I first posted that. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 03:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to retain an article. If there are other articles on the encyclopedia which need to be deleted, they will be deleted in good time. This AfD is about this article and nothing else. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - At present, this is not an encyclopedic article; more a random list of statistics gathered by one editor. These statistics appear to be trivial (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) and use a ranking system which is not reflected in the sources (those that work, anyway), so this article therefore violates WP:NOR. The scope of this article is unclear, with a lack of a lead section or any real prose not helping matters. However, as it stands, the evidence suggests, that this article was created in good faith to act as a content fork of List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest. If there is disagreement over the content of an article, then the Dispute resolution policy must be followed. Circumventing dispute resolution by creating fork articles is not appropriate, and perhaps should be counselled on this matter after this AfD is closed. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:30, 30 October 2015 (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.