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 merge to Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Their notability is dependent entirely on this one event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suntribe[edit]

Suntribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails general notability. This girl group disbanded very quickly after they formed, and released no material during their small "career"; only being part of Eurovision 2005. Statυs (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Eurovision Song Contest 2005/Delete. I found one source but otherwise there's nothing to show notability for this group. It might be usable as a redirect, though. I would also recommend that you look into the articles Let's Get Loud (Suntribe song), Laura Põldvere, and Mari-Leen, as they seem to have had articles created about them and may not pass notability guidelines. The song most likely wouldn't.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The articles that the nominator has mentioned do fulfil notability for many reasons. They were participants in a contest that is watched by over 125 million viewers worldwide. The contest itself is highly notable as are the artist(s) who participated in the contest over the last 57 years, and their songs which they performed. Wesley Mouse 11:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Eurovision itself gives instant notability to a music group. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed [1]

Not so much canvassed as notified of an article with a subject concerning a Wiki group that I am a part of. And of a subject that I have much knowledge and interest in. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with you that it is better to not "ask" a user per say to look at a AfD. But on the other hand asking someone with knowledge about a certain subject. And when both users are members of the Eurovision project it can hardly be considered bad faith. peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it highly offensive that a user has falsely accused me of canvassing without justification. As a member of WP:EURO I was acting in good faith to inform another member of the project of an article discussion - know that they didn't have the article alerts page on their watchlist. I felt it polite to allow a member of the same project the opportunity to participate in a discussion and make their own !vote choice. Wesley Mouse 14:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are other places where such a thing can be done. You seemed to have singled out that user specifically, and with LibStar pointing out below the user 99.9% of the time votes keeps, it seems like canvassing to me. Statυs (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justification = BabbaQ votes keep 99.9% of the time. Wesley mouse failed to notify those who are known to vote delete. It's offensive not to notify a wide range of editors. babbaQ does not need direction of where to vote. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still assume good faith Libstar. I have no reason to !vote Keep if it is a Delete worthy article. Me and Wesley are members of the same Eurovision wikiproject and both have knowledge about the contest and its participants and that is the main reason to why Wesley notified me, not because he wanted a Keep !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Let's Get Loud (Suntribe song). The article does seem to meet notability because they performed at Eurovision Song Contest but there seems to be a lack of improvement/development as the group was short lived. Since the notable event is a song contest it is better to re-direct it the song entry article. Bleubeatle (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  we have been trough this before Bleubeatle. Performing at a Music competition with more then 100 million peoplewatching is notable in itself. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that they weren't notable or the contest. But the group seems to be only notable because of one event - WP:BLP1E. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You've misquoted a wiki-guidance Bleubeatle. Its WP:BIO1E remember, not BLP1E. Wesley Mouse 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Opps..Yup that's right :D Bleubeatle (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We havent merged any created Eurovision performer/performers article of the Eurovisions from the 21st century via the fact that it is notablility to have performed at Eurovision so far. So lets not set a strange one-off precedent here.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand. I haven't mentioned any mergers in my sentence. Re-directs are very different from mergers. Perhaps editing the article would be the best thing so that it has its own page? Then hopefully the nominator would re-consider withdrawing this. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what BabbaQ means is by redirecting the article some or all of its contents would most likely need to be merged into the other in order to keep a record of some of the facts. If we redirect, then the contents from Suntribe article would technically be erased. Wesley Mouse 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm I'm not sure about that. All I know is that a deletion means a loss of information which I'm not supporting since I believe its content is still important. Looking at the article now, more content has been added since it was nominated so let's wait for the nominator's verdict then. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Being short lived doesn't make a band non-notable. Saying they "released no material" is also false, as they released another single, which means it doesn't violate WP:BIO1E. Even so, that policy also states that "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles". Better sources are indeed required, however. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Just because they appeared in Eurovision does not make them notable. May I suggest merging this page with Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005? As in, creating a section of that article about them, specifically. I feel like this needs to be done to a lot of other articles, as well. Statυs (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep - Back in February, the page for Anri Jokhadze, the Georgian participant at the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, came under an AFD. Like Suntribe, he achieved nothing notable apart from performing at Eurovision. At the time, Wesley Mouse said the following (which applies here too):

  If such articles become deleted, then we'd might as well start deleting all articles relating to one-time participants in Eurovision, and create a black hole in a project. Many English-speaking users worldwide rely on such Eurovision-related articles for the purpose of research for whatever reasons, whether it be pub quizzes, or general enthusiasm for the Eurovision Song Contest, and everything - artist(s) and song(s). Don't start crashing down a European heritage and cause a huge research black hole.

  This means that if Suntribe gets deleted, then, by Status' logic, we'll have to get rid of Jemini, Josh Dubovie and Lindsay Dracass for a start. And this is just going backwards. This makes this whole nomination ridiculous, as is the nomination for The Mullans... Spa-Franks (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly is "by Status' logic" supposed to mean? Jemini, Josh Dubovie and Lindsay Dracass are completely different situations, all three of those have a song that has charted; proving there is something, at least, notable about them. I would really like for someone who isn't involved with the Eurovision project to comment here, as there are many articles created that are apart of the project that fail notability and should not exist. It seems as if all members of the project feel every single song ever done on Eurovision is notable, when that's not the case at all. Each song can easily be summarized in their respective years. Statυs (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Participating at Eurovision the worlds by far biggest music competition on TV with more then 100 million viewers givs instant notability. Even if the singer/s, groups never charts with a song again. Representing a whole country is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Please take a look at WP:ONEEVENT. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate". 20th place is not significant. I think articles for anything above ten are appropriate, but anything beyond that are ridiculous. Statυs (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Status already understands how notable the event is BabbaQ. I think his point was that not every contestant/participant/representative in this event requires their own article unless they have done other notable activities beyond the contest. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I'm saying. Statυs (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of a strawman before?--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you do.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you don't. Statυs (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I understand, do you I ask?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't. Statυs (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Spa-Franks - I've checked some of those articles that you've listed. Josh Dubovie seems to be the only good example since he has done some notable activities beyond his participation, based on the content of his article. As for the other articles, I think that they really need a lot of expansion and improvement. Bleubeatle (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) - If you feel articles could do with a lot of expansion and improvements Bleubeatle, then why don't you do what we are suppose to do on Wikipedia and help to improve them, rather than press the AfD button on them? In my opinion, for someone to just nominate an article for deletion rather than help to improve it is the lazy and cowardice way out of contributing collaboratively. Wesley Mouse 12:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bleubeatle is now wanting to influence the closing of this and another article. While at the same time accusing me and Wesley of doing so--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I only put those articles in to show an examples of one-time participants in Eurovision which have never been deleted and should not. Eurovision is usually full of people no one had ever heard of before the contest. If you feel an article needs to be improved then slapping an AfD on it is not the right answer. Indeed, at Project:Eurovision, we care about articles such as this and every contestant is involved in at least one template (in this case, ((Eurovision Song Contest 2005))). This may be just personal preference, but I'd rather we have stubby articles for every contestant first, then improve them. Spa-Franks (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to closing admin - This discussion has been contaminated severely seeing as there accusation of canvassing between myself and BabbaQ. And other users appear to be doing the same in order to gather support for mass-deletion of Eurovision articles. Diffs are as follows - 1, 2, and 3. People shouldn't cast accusations of canvassing, and then go about the same actions themselves. Wesley Mouse 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with Wesley. If someone accuses another of canvassing which has been proven not to be the case, they should not then go and do it themselves to gather support for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 - It is unfortunate that this discussion has gone as far downhill as it has - I think there is a collective need to tone it down a notch or two. I don't agree with the opinion that this is an open and shut case of non-notability, but nor do I think that any kind of merge/re-direct/deletion should be resisted at all costs on fears of slippery slope into mass deletions. Notability isn't too much of an issue in itself here - on the path to Eurovision, it is somewhat implausible that a group/individual wouldn't be subject to coverage in a good number of third-party sources as needed by the WP:GNG - Eurovision news sites and coverage from a person's/group's home country could both meet this independently. Also, participation in Eurovision clearly passes criterion nine of WP:MUSICBIO, and probably ten and twelve as well. The real issue is WP:BIO1E and this part: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." I interpret this to mean that a re-direct to Eurovision Song Contest 2005 would be inappropriate as the contest was highly significant as was the group's role in it, with the need for a "separate article" defending the existence of Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Overall, since all the content in the group article could be in the Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005, and are essentially two articles covering the same subject, a merge is appropriate. However, I must emphasise that merges such as this should not be across the board, but done on a case-by-case basis, and this AfD clearly should not be setting a precedent to do the former, as there are many participants which do justify separate bios - I will emphasize that this should be assessed based on what is known about them and the sources available e.t.c. - I don't see the current state of the articles as relevant, per WP:POTENTIAL. CT Cooper · talk 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge content to the Estonia Eurovision article - Due to the nature of Eurovision, simply being involved does not assure a band would have any long-lasting career. (Today, this would be the equivalent of saying any contestant of American Idol or other equivalent talent show is immediately notable - which is not. Winners and breakouts (aka Susan Boyle), yes, but not each contestant). We look for enduring coverage around the time the band actually existed, and the article shows little that can't be covered in the Estonia Eurovision article. Flash-in-the-pan musical groups do not always get articles on WP. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the point. Being nationally selected by a country to represent it at the world biggest televised music compeititon is within WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list given at WP:MUSIC are conditions for the presumption of notability as to allow the article to be created and expanded. Given that the group is now defunct, so no new sources will be coming about, and this appears to be all there is to say about the group (outside of the actual EuroV contest), challenging that presumption is completely acceptable within WP:N. There is no automatic allowance for an article for any topic period. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005. Since the group has no notability outside the event covered by this page, having two articles is clearly redundant. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Estonia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005 - Changing my original !vote from keep to merge. In hindsight of what has been said (albeit some harsh comments aimed at myself too) a merger does seem more plausible rather than a complete deletion. A lot of the guidances quoted appear to conflict with each other, with some links backing-up a deletion, and some backing-up a keep. This causes great concerns to myself personally as having conflicting guidelines leaves situations open to interpretation or even loopholes within the system, and that isn't cooperative nor helpful to any user old or new. What may be perceived as an overall solution to and prevention of future scenarios like this from reoccurring would be for some sort of medcab or request for comment within WP:EURO to establish a future president for articles relating to Eurovision participants/songs. Wesley Mouse 14:49, 13 August 2012 (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.