Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest

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

Very similar article for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest was deleted recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the top ranking countries of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest for reasons that extend to this article as well. Page is primarily statistics, which are trivial, with much original research included. Content could easily be summarised as appropriate (if it isn't already) in other articles. CT Cooper · talk 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : There's a summary of statistics on the main Eurovision Song Contest page. I'm undecided whether this belongs here, as has been mentioned, the statistics are not obviously available elsewhere (the book reference, dated 2007, cannot obviously be used a source for 2010 statistics), but I don't think it does any harm having them. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of proper sourcing is more grounds for deletion in my view, than it is for keeping. Articles are supposed to summarise the contents of reliable sources per WP:V and WP:N. Straight tables of results in articles such as Eurovision Song Contest 2010 can be sourced and are appropriate, and simple calculations are also allowed per WP:CALC. This article goes beyond both those things, with league table based on a methodology invented by editors (e.g. giving a point for each country in the top five), and hence violates the original research policy. The text that goes with it reads like a personal interpretation of the tables, and again is original research. The content may not be harmful in itself, and may do well on a more suitable website, but it is not encyclopaedic. CT Cooper · talk 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, as above; additionally, may be included in the main article. --Neutrality^talk 20:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont see the harm in keeping it. Yes its trivial but so are alot of other articles on Wikipedia. This is good statistics for Eurovision-interested readers that are updated each year. The main article is already quite big and this material would make it perhaps too big in my opinion. It should have its own article.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I hinted on above, harm isn't the issue here, nor whether it is interesting or not. The issue about the main article being too big is easily answered - most of the content in this article should go entirely for violating WP:NOR. CT Cooper · talk 22:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is WP:OR Mt king ^(edits) 03:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean?--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The ranking by point scheme used to determine the list is original research unless there are sources that show this ranking scheme is widely accepted. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2011 (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.