- 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 per consensus. Interesting and well-constructed but neither notable nor encyclopedic. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TOP 10: Most watched - Eurovision Song Contest[edit]
- TOP 10: Most watched - Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable series of YouTube videos about some unnotable internal statistics. All sources are the videos themselves. No reliable secondary sources reported on these videos, let alone the whole series, failing WP:GNG and WP:LISTN (since this is effectively a list). The material is better suited for a FANDOM site or dedicated Eurovision wiki. IceWelder [✉] 15:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @IceWelder: I don't have much to add. I think the article belongs on Wikipedia regardless of these issues, as it is in fact a series followed by tens of thousands of people, and having a place to collect all the data in one place is useful to both fans and people looking into Eurovision and its trends. There are no external sources or coverage as this is a series which relies on Youtube analytics that really only the EBU and YouTube itself have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImStevan (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You did put a lot of effort into the page, but Wikipedia isn't the place to put all information that may be useful. The notability requirements are there for a reason. External coverage doesn't have to be reporting on the data itself; it can also be news articles about the series, or as you said people analysing the trends and publishing their findings. The fact that those sources don't exist indicates that this series isn't actually that notable. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- YouTube viewership figures do not indicate notability under Wikipedia's terms. Please make yourself familiar with our notability guidelines like WP:GNG. As I mentioned, you can always transfer it to a more topical wiki, such as Eurovision Song Contest Wiki. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was the one who added the notability header on the website as I couldn’t find any external coverage, although the stats are interesting this isn’t worth its own Wikipedia article but could be transferred to fandom Tai123.123 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It is definitely an interesting group of stats, however I'm afraid given the lack of secondary and tertiary sources providing coverage of this series it fails the Wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion on this site, and would better fit into a more specific fandom site as suggested above. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a very interesting article, but I don't believe it to be encyclopedic for the reasons stated in the responses above. Grk1011 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Concur with the above three editors. Definitely interesting (and props to the editor for putting this much effort into it) but just doesn't pass the notability standards. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I hate !voting for something to be deleted which the editor obviously spent so much time and effort on, but I cannot find any reliable sources which significantly cover this, which is required by all articles on Wikipedia. I suggest that the editor take this article and maybe try to find a relavent Wikia to post it.-- Mike 🗩 21:10, 8 December 2021 (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.