Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Selections in the Eurovision Song Contest

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Selections in the Eurovision Song Contest

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has been waiting in the Draft queue for several months. I cannot decide whether or not it duplicates the material in List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest.Since it's not my field, and it's unfair to leave it in limbo, I accepted it, bit only for the purpose of bringing it here so that those who know more than I in this field can decide what to do with it. Myself, I'm offering no opinion. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I find the article a bit unwieldy and borderline wp:fancruft. I'm not sure it presents any information that's particularly useful outside of a comparison of selection events. I think an article or couple of paragraphs on Eurovision Song Contest can talk about how entrants are selected at a high level, but I don't think a list/timeline is the best way to present that information. Each Country in article can detail the respective selection procedures with a greater level of detail Grk1011 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grk above. Each country participating has its dedicated article, while this article just feels scopeless. The concept of a "national final" is also not exclusive to Eurovision. Best we could do here is a navbox template. Lordtobi (✉) 17:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nomination is neutral and one of the other !votes is a weak delete I'd normally soft delete. However, given the history here that doesn't strike me as appropriate and so I am relisting in hopes that a clearer consensus can be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a reader, I find it useful and interesting to be able to compare the various countries and the methods they used to select their entrants, which parceling the info out to the Country in articles wouldn't accomplish. The article expands on List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest#Participants section with informative details that could not easily be added to the List article. It adds to the depth of our Eurovision coverage (which, even as an American, I know is A Big Deal). It doesn't seem like the article really fails or passes on any specific policy/guideline, so maybe it's just a case of WP:ILIKEIT, but there it is. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find this article useful. Articles sources seems decent enough for inclusion. The article does expand the knowledge of Eurovision for interested readers. I think WP:GNG threshold met.BabbaQ (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to send this for a third relist given the extremely close support levels. I looked at making a judgement on policy strength/weakness, and certainly there are whispers of ILIKEIT, but there is sufficient consideration of points to warrant further consideration
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The good references pushes this article over the treshold for inclusion. I stand by my !vote and it does not include ILIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2019 (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.