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 Keep - delete is certainly in the minority (about 25%), and some of the suggestions to merge are not particularly appropriate IMHO, as Eurovision Song Contest 2006 was split because it was too large, so keep in terms of majority consensus as well as the fact that merging and moving content is not particularly feasible.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006[edit]

Individual articles for each year of France'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 France in the Eurovision Song Contest which covers the key points. Any notable groups, who happen to be France'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. This should be true for all countries with respect to the Eurovision Song Contest Bejnar 06:47, 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 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of them. As much as I hate the Eurovision Song Contest, there is simply no denying that even such a trivial thing as the selection of an entry is a major media event in every European country. David Sneek 08:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not major enough for all these articles. One for each country is fine, not one for each year and each country. --Bduke 09:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of Them - 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 09:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many of them are still in the stub form, but for example the Poland article is fairly developed now (though still can be expanded significantly). Poland participated 11 times so far, so you would have at least 11 times this (plus other information) in Poland's article, which would make the article big and cumbersome, and therefore we would probably have requests for splitting into individual articles... Do also note that all these articles were created following the request to shorten and clean up the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article.
We have articles on each municipality of San Marino, which are probably all shorter than the shortest article on the list above and nobody in their right mind starts a campaign to delete them - they can all be developed. Bravada, talk - 10:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was added at the top of the page by User:203.96.106.90 and might be considered a voice in this discussion. It certainly does not belong at the top of the page, so I moved it here (Bravada, talk - 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

I think these pages are very interesting and they should not be deleted!

Merge any and all individual per year by country articles into a series of articles in the form Country X at the Eurovision Song Contest and Eurovision Song Contest 19XX. An overall article per year and an individual article per country are surely enough. Grutness...wha? 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No point of deleting them! Empty2005 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to either France in the Eurovision Song Contest or to the articles of the contest in those years. -- 9cds^(talk) 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all not encyclopedic. fancruft abuse of wikipedia. Bwithh 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is all verifiable factual information, and to include this either information in a single page per contest or a single page per country would mean those pages get very big very quickly.- fchd 14:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not whether the information is verifiable, it is whether it is notable, and whether, if notable, it belongs in this structure, or in the biographical structure. A media circus in one year does not make something notable, see all of the UK years 1957-2000, for what they are worth now.
  - IMO, they are certainly more notable than the subject of today's featured article, an American High School. - fchd 16:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no need for them. --Robdurbar 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I must say despite voting delete for the previous Eurovision-related AFD due to lack of information. This year's contest is a current event and is expected to have more coverage on Wikipedia than before and will be updated quickly. Well, when the event ends, the main article will be very long and if all the countries pages are on the main article, it takes up excessive space on the article. --Terence Ong 16:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This is a huge event in Europe, at least as notable as most of the pop culture stuff that is retained without challenge. There is too much to merge into one place, and it couldn't be properly categorised if it was merged. There is a template to link the individual articles, which is a far more user friendly way of connecting the material than converting it into one article - which would be likely to breach the article size limit in any case. Osomec 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia covers stuff at this level, and I don't have a problem with that. Way more notable than things like computer game characters which appeal to a narrow demographic that is over represented on Wikipedia. Nathcer 18:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non encyclopedic fancruft. --Strothra 19:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the case for deletion was not made. These articles give details on how each country came to choose its entry into the contest. There is no reason to merge them. --Asbl 20:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These are decent sized articles in many cases. Twittenham 22:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I hold no brief for Eurovision, but a good number of these articles are not stubs, and altogether they will be too large to be merged into a single - and horrible messy - Eurovision 06 article. In addition, this is f the main article is the place for the details of how each entry was chosen - which I think it isnt. Hornplease 23:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely tenuous delete all per nom. But only if the other articles can be merged into a main article like France in the Eurovision Song Contest. Otherwise keep. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all some good articles there, other events have this sort of coverage on wikipedia --Astrokey44 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, passes verifiability, notability, needfulness and "fun" tests. Vizjim 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - see the other Eurovision-related Afd's. -- Hirudo 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good set of articles. Athenaeum 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 article isn't that large with most of the space taken up by tables. Merge infomation into the artists own page (for example merge Iceland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 mainly into Silvía Night and put Moldova in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 into Arsenie Todiraş) and country information into Eurovision Song Contest 2006.Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was part of phase 4 of the Eurovision Project, national selections for each year are very intresting take a look at **United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1967,**United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 1963, etc. Wikipedia is an almanac for this kind of information, the 2006 entries are more complete, but others will be dealt with in time.
- Actually being part of a Wikipedia project is not a reason to keep. This vote is testing whether or not Phase 4 was well founded in the context of the whole Wikipedia. Bejnar 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення)
Keep, very notable in their respective countries. Verifiable, notable, people care about this stuff, Wikipedia is not paper, ... What would be the American equivalent, deleting all American Idol subarticles? (No, of course I'm not proposing that.) Weregerbil 09:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I agreed with the forking of content because the content was becoming unwieldly large in the main Eurovision 2006 article. MLA 09:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are not doing any harm, and some countries would need very long general articles, having been in the comp. for 50 years!!!
Keep They are all part of one of the goals for Wikiproject Eurovision Greekboy 17:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Eurovision is a massive event. ReeseM 22:22, 1 June 2006 (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.