Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020


 * 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 all‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article together with the same topic for each year was merged into France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest by without consensus and noted here. Note that, there has been objection from to redirect articles of this topic for recent years. As for this one, edit war occurs and involves other editors including, and 's sock ips from Attiki, Athens, Greece. Therefore, I proposed this deletion to obtain a consensus if articles under this topic of each year should be blanked and redirected, including this one and the following related pages:

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and France. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the [Some Country] in the [Some International Song Contest] [Some Year] articles should be redirected to catch-all articles based on the contest in a particular year. The country's participation can be summarized in one or two paragraphs. No need for individual country articles. Oh, and Dealer07 should be rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect for this article. However, I do not believe that all "country in year" articles are the same. I'll repost what I wrote at the catch-all talk page for context: Hi all- I've boldly merged the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 articles into this summary article. I don't think all year articles should be merged for all countries, but these specific ones consisted of internal selections with little public fanfare or widespread media coverage. The [merged information] basically consisted of identifying who was selected, how, with what song, and how the entry fared at the contest. This level of detail is already the threshold for this [summary] article, so a separate article with the same exact information (alongside boilerplate background from this article and contest summaries copy-pasted from other articles) seems like overkill. Additionally, this [summary] article already was missing at least 2 years of information, so we were doing a disservice to the reader by scattering that information. More discussion would be necessary for articles with detailed national finals, which would likely not require merges and would remain as separate articles. As part of the redirects, I did merge the relevant information. I do respect other editor's desires to disagree, so happy to take part in this discussion with a wider audience. Grk1011 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I also support the redirects for the 2022 and 2023 articles that were later added to this nom. Grk1011 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect. Completely concur with Grk1011 that in many cases there are good reasons to continue to host articles of this nature, and in fact can be a valued resource for readers. The San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest good topic is a prime example of this. However in many cases, as with this article, there is no information presented that can't be replicated, or is not already duplicated, within the parent topic article (in this case France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest), and therefore a separate article for the particular year in question is not required. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. What I am noticing amongst this deletion spree (across Eurovision articles in general) is that good information is being lost due to the carelessness of those deleting or redirecting. Even if efforts were being made in order to keep basic information, this would be hard to support due to lost information such as the juror results, which it is standard to have for every country in every year (should those be deleted too?). Most (but not all) of this information could be replicated, but it never is. Templates aren't being copied, artists get pages deleted without their information being ever moved to (Country) in (Year), for example Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 which has one lazy mention of the individual artists and no repetition of the succession box that surely should be there. If we are going to be deleting pages in order to apparently clean up the site, it is important to make sure that we're not making the site worse at the same time (and at the moment, this process is making the site worse). Toffeenix (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand some of your concerns about making sure that we don't lose anything vital when merging/redirecting articles, however it sounds to me as though you're wanting a policy where we just move everything from one article into another without considering the overall cohesion of the new article. In the case of artist page deletion this comes down to notability, and it's not right that in cases where a standalone article on an artist is not merited that we then just replicate word-for-word the content from that article in another article when the context is not there to justify this. That is not the place for that information, and while yes there can be some discretion for including summary information about the artist(s) or song, having a whole section in the "country by year" articles devoted to the song and artist, including any infoboxes/templates, is sloppy and creates almost a "Frankenstein's monster" situation which I believe should be avoided. This is especially true in instances such as the articles within the AfD, where the contents of said section are essentially "this is the artist, this is the song and these are the songwriters", which is hardly needed given that all this information is present in the articles for the specific edition of the contest and on the country's participation. Regarding your point on succession boxes, all relevant links are already featured in the navboxes at the bottom of the article to aid in navigation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * there was consensus back in 2021 to not structure articles in the way that you are recommending; see here. These pages aren't supposed to serve as the place where aspects deemed as non-notable (in terms of Wikipedia) can live on as stub articles. Relating to Sims' 'cohesive' comment, I'd suggest you read Australia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (a representative article showing this problem) from top to bottom. These articles are intended to be chronological stories of the participation, not repetitive lists of facts. Grk1011 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just in order to make sure I am understanding correctly, you are saying Australia/JESC18 is an article with too much information? Toffeenix (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's an article with the same exact information repeated over and over again. Grk1011 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Both Keep and Procedural close per WP:WRONGFORUM. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sourcing used in the article. I'm not seeing a valid reason to merge or redirect per WP:ATD as it appears to be a viable content fork. Further the nominator has not made a valid policy based argument to bring this article to AFD. None of the commenters above have addressed this article in relation to our guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY which indicates to me that this is not an appropriate discussion for AFD. In reading the comments above, the objections to this article appear to be entirely based on an editorial preference for housing content at the parent article based on a past merge discussion . This is the WP:WRONGFORUM for this discussion which should have gone through WP:MERGEPROP because it is a WP:CONTENTFORK on a notable topic and merging is optional.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I amended my comment above, now that I understand a WP:CONSENSUS discussion never happened when these articles were originally redirected (and indeed this AFD is the first community discussion of these articles). It is not surprising that edit warring and article reversions occurred around a contentious merge that was done without discussion by a single editor. This further points to the need for a merge discussion through the proper forum at Proposed article mergers which is where editors are supposed to bring controversial merges. The fact that at least one editor besides myself has indicated that content will be lost through redirecting articles to the parent target; indicates that a selective merge of some material might be appropriate. This is a discussion that should be brought to the proper forum where decisions can be made over which articles should be redirected (or potentially kept) and what content should be merged if any. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * A merge or redirect is certainly an appropriate outcome from an AfD, though I agree if that was the nominator's intent there were 'easier' paths. The point myself and some others are trying to make is that a properly written Lead for this article actually is the whole article, and at that point, it fits nicely as a paragraph in the France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest summary article. There really isn't anything else to add to improve this article, so having it forked just spreads around a lot of information. Grk1011 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a merge if there is no content to merge. And even then, a merger can be a perfectly valid outcome of an AfD discussion. And even then, per WP:NOTBURO, a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.
 * Regarding your point about notability, most references in the article aren't actually about France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020; most are either about France in JESC in general, or about the JESC edition in general; only 5 are specifically about France's participation in the 2020 contest. The only information from those sources is: who was the entrant, what was the result, and how did the jurors vote. That is not enough to write a proper encyclopedia article. That sounds more like something for a database. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of you are missing the point and ignoring deletion policy at WP:WRONGFORUM. There was no valid deletion argument made in the nomination based on deletion policy. A merge and redirect is only a valid option at AFD as an alternative to a properly made deletion nomination per WP:ATD. The nominator never made a deletion argument and was essentially requesting a merge/redirect. This is the wrong forum and this should therefore be a procedural close. AFD is not a proxy for WP:MERGEPROP; and a merge proposal has notifications made at the target article whereas an AFD does not. This discussion shouldn't be had here because the proper notifications that would be done in a merge procedure don't happen at AFD, and that has an impact on community participation/ input and the consensus building proces; particularly MERGEPROP banners that would notify editors with an invested interest in the content area at the target article. This discussion should be closed and a merge prop done in order that the editors with an invested interest in the target article might be more likely to be made aware of the discussion, and that the threat of deletion be removed from that discussion. We don't discuss merges here that aren't related to a properly made deletion rationale.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I notified people there. But a merge banner would imply that content is actually being merged. The whole reasoning behind this AfD is that there's so little info in these articles, everything is covered by France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A merge was already done some time ago and now a sock-related account is reverting it. All of the relevant information is already in the 'target' article; a merge discussion doesn't accomplish anything. We're here because it appeared that there may be support from others for the article to exist and the nominator is looking to gain a consensus that could help with similar articles. Most, if not all, invested editors are aware of this discussion. They've either been tagged in the nom or found out through our WikiProject alerts. With the exception of you, every other commenter above is active in Eurovision articles. Being here brings a wider perspective and I for one am eager to see how uninvolved editors feel. Many of us agree with the nominator's deletion rationale and have !voted as such (I'd prefer a straight deletion, but the redirect is fine too). I understand that you disagree with this, and you are certainly welcome to have the opinion that this article should remain. For me, it feels weird to double down on a process concern when input on the actual subject of the discussion is plentiful. Grk1011 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can sympathize. It can be challenging to know what to do when dealing with a problematic editor(s). I would not have brought this to AFD though, as AFD's narrow scope is on determining content inclusion based on set notability guidelines (or speedy deletion rationales). This really isn't the place to settle content disputes of this type. My suggestion would be to have a formal WP:MERGEPROP which is what should have done as opposed to this. The outcome of a formal consensus from a successful merge proposal discussion would then be enforceable (by an admin if necessary and at WP:Page protection). If further issues occur with edit warring, you might consider reporting the problem to Disruptive editing. All of this to say, AFD is not the place to handle this type of edit warring conflict or the editorial process of merging multiple articles.4meter4 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Restore redirect per Grk1011, they said all that needs to be said.  // Timothy :: talk  03:22, 5 November 2023 (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.