Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006

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 of the debate was no consensus. --Ezeu 07:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006[edit]

Individual articles for each year of the U.K.'s (or any other country's) entries in the Eurovision Song Contest are duplicative and certainly not necessarily notable. There should be a single article for United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be U.K.'s entry, should have their own articles. Those that are not notable should not be wedged into the Wikipedia by the mechanism of having yearly Eurovision articles by country. Bejnar 05:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. The authors should consider creating biographical articles (if they do not already exist) about the bands or individuals listed in these articles who are separately notably and appropriate to include in the Wikipedia under the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Bejnar 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete all eventually, but that's a lot of articles. If there's useful information that would be better elsewhere, we need to make sure it is moved – Gurch 08:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A random sample of these has very little content. They should be combined together to make a real article that might be interesting. --Bduke 09:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no need to have individual articles as the main article is adequate for the purpose. There is not enough content to justify 50-odd stubs for any nation doktorb | words 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to either United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all Not encyclopedic. Fancruft abuse of Wikipedia. Bwithh 14:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except UK in Eurovision contest 2006, unencyclopaedic, this is not a sports event, Eurovisioncruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all No, it isn't a sport event, but it gets much higher ratings than most sports events. Osomec 18:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I would expect to see these for future years, so we should keep the old ones too. They contain useful information and biographical articles are no substitute for these articles which put things in context. Each year's contest was covered by a highly rated television programme or series of programmes that probably wouldn't have been nominated if it was separate from the Eurovision Song Contest. Nathcer 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the point exactly, these are not independantly notable. The question is not whether they are useful to someone, it is whether they belong in an encyclopedia. Eurovision has its own wiki.Bejnar 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all They belong in this encyclopedia. Twittenham 22:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nathcer. Also, its clear that national song contests are notable. Hornplease 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some have detail which would be too much for the main UK article --Astrokey44 03:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, per 9cds. This is just way way overkill. -- Hirudo 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, per 9cds and Hirudo. There is no problem in creating one big page for all of the UK Eurovision events. Eurovision is a strong point of European culture, so it is important that this event is recognized in Wikipedia, as one complete page. To say that it is worth having a two sentence entry on the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1985 isn't worth the effort put into it. Sens08 16:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of wide interest. A single article would just be a future subdivision waiting to happen. Athenaeum 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all would read far better on one page. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much detail has been added, but it can be expanded with time and information is useful to those who want to know what song was chosen and how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.4.208 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 29 May 2006

Comment Oh no: the sockpuppets are coming out now. The above is the 2nd ever contribution of that IP. Have a look at what the 1st one was. --Mais oui! 20:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Back I am fonzy orignial creator of the article, forgot my pass unfortunatly but stumbled upon this deletion whilst browsing anyway, yes some are 2 sentance stubs but they never had the natinal final information added in.

editI would also like to note merging every national final onto one country page would be a right mess! 50 years of national semi-\finals would be far far far too large and would have to be split up anyway. The information is out there (altough for early years it is missing some). -(extra edit) it seems that the other eurovision afd on the same type of article has the concensus of keep this should be kept also as just keeping the 2006 entry is daft as you would expect to find every other year as well.
Keep (with apologies to some fine people I see voting the other way). These are all national events, and all generate their own notable controversies etc. "Wikipedia is not paper" seems to apply here. Vizjim 13:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result of the other afd was keep therefor this should be kept too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.107.9 (talk • contribs)
Merge all to United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. That would be a 50 line table (not too much for a summary article), with _ALL_ biographical data merged to the respective person or band biographies (if notable). The regional event itself may be highly watchable, but it doesn’t generate information except for the names of the winners, runners-up, etc. Any special occurrences (non-biographical) can be mentioned in the text of United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest. Biographical data does not need to be duplicated, it can be linked. Bejnar 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50 lines??? there is far more information than a 50 line table. 1957 had 3 semi-finals and 1 main minal, thats just 1 year. some other years in the 70s had 10 entries for just 1 "final". all together that is more than 50 lines,

Questions Is that extra data memorable? Is it notable? Does it belong in the Wikipedia? If so why? What changes an ephermeral event, however big into something notable? Many of these singers would not be noted at all if they didn't appear in the tables, see, for example from 1957, Bryan Johnson (singer).Bejnar 17:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper,it can go into far more detail with every topic, national contests are a big deal watch\listened by millions of people, data is memorable (in some ways), data is avalible (altough a couple of early years do have lost data. 2006 entries were allowed so I repeat therefor older years are allowed too.

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.