07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC): Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016 : deleted.  Turkvision Song Contest 2016 : deleted.  Except for the websites turkvision.info, turkvizyon.tv etc. of the organisation Turkvision / Turkvizyon itself, or the various broadcasters of the event ( WP:PRIMARY ), and Anthony Granger of Eurovoix, nobody seems to have been interested in covering these countries' participation in this event.  There are a few exceptions in which a third source is invoked, but that's usually not an WP:RS either.  Some examples: Gagauzia: govt website Gagauzia.md is invoked for the claim that an incentive of 10,000 Moldovan leu was given to get people to participate .  Which is probably true, but the participant in question, Ludmila Tukan , failed to qualify...  I'm not impressed.  Germany: aufrechtgehn.de/impressum/ is just a WP:SELFPUB blog.  I'm not impressed.  Turkshow.de / dugun.tv is the German broadcaster of Turkvision, so a WP:PRIMARY source.  Khakassia: r-19.ru is the official website of the Government of the Republic of Khakassia.  It is only invoked to confirm the name of the song of the 2020 Khakassian contestant, who ended in 11th place...  I'm not impressed.  Northern Cyprus: kibrisgenctv.com is the local broadcaster of Turkvision, so a WP:PRIMARY source.  Poland: eurowizja.org is the website of the Association of Enthusiasts of the Eurovision Song Contest OGAE Polska .  This may be a relevant source, it may even be a reliable source, and it is independent of Turkvision.  (This is why I hesitated until today, 10 a.m. of 9 June, to include this Poland page in this AfD).  But it is invoked only once to support 2 sentences about Polish participation in the 2020 (online) edition of Turkvision, and this is the only time the article Poland in the Turkvision Song Contest invokes any source other than Turkvision.info itself, or other than our great friend Anthony Granger from Eurovoix.  What is the result of this whole page?  A contestant from Poland tried to participate in the 2016 and 2017 editions (both of which were cancelled), and the only contestant who actually managed to participate in the 2020 edition came in at 18th place.  I think this last bit, plus the eurowizja.org ref, can easily be mentioned in Turkvision Song Contest 2020 .  So the best option in this case may be more of a manual merge than an outright deletion, but there is a large number of stuff in this article that is probably not worth keeping, so I'm still including the page in this AfD.  Belarus: qanunpress.com deadlink.  This newsoutlet was only established in 2015, the article dates from 12 December 2015, it's a deadlink, and there is no indication of any editorial review or policy other than that the General Director is Vidadi Gozalov.  This is the only article in English Wikipedia that ever cites qanunpress.com, it is not mentioned by any other major news media.  So I'm gonna count this as an unreliable source, and add Belarus to this AfD (noon 9 June).  From the Russia article, I would include one significant fact into the main article Turkvision Song Contest , namely that the Russian Ministry of Culture banned all Russian regions from competing in the 2015 contest because it was part of the TURKSOY organisation.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Events .  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  As pointed out by the nominator, these articles fail on a number of points, including WP:GNG , WP:SINGLESOURCE and a lack of diverse WP:RS to support the continued hosting of these articles.  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 07:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete For reasons stated above.  WP:GNG and WP:SINGLESOURCE -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 11:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan , Iran , Iraq , Bulgaria , Georgia (country) , Germany , Kosovo , Moldova , North Macedonia , Russia ,  and Serbia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kyrgyzstan , Albania , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Cyprus , Poland , Romania , Turkey ,  and Ukraine .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Observation (as nom) Several articles that appear to use more than just Anthony Granger of Eurovoix, Turkvision itself or its broadcasters, or questionable/perennial other sources, appear to be those on Azerbaijan.  Indeed, sources with an . az domain name or otherwise written in Azerbaijani are sometimes found in other pages, such as the one on Belarus.  This could mean that a single editor has been behind the creation of many if not all of these pages.  xtools.wmcloud.org/pages shows, however, that one user created only 8 Turkvision-related pages (5 of which have been deleted so far, including one about Azerbaijan which I nomimated; the remaining 4 are all about Azerbaijan).  But they also created lots of Eurovision pages, all except 1 have not been deleted so far.  So there is no reason to hold bias against this person (who is actually one of the better editors in the field of song contests), and the pages must have been created by multiple people, even if they all rely pretty heavily on the same type of sources.  I haven't included the last 4 pages on Azerbaijan for this reason yet, they might pass WP:GNG .  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on the future of Turkvision articles At the moment, I think the main articles Turkvision Song Contest , Turkvision Song Contest 2013 , Turkvision Song Contest 2014 , Turkvision Song Contest 2015 , Turkvision Song Contest 2020 , and the Azerbaijan articles will pass WP:GNG .  The remaining ones (almost all of which I have nominated above) probably do not pass WP:GNG .  Any relevant information from the nominated articles may be manually merged into the articles which do pass general notability.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment on Turkvision's history and future in general It seems to me that the reason why Turkvision has not been able to become a successful recurring event had to do with external factors which neither the organisation nor the broadcasters can probably be held responsible for, as they were beyond their control.  As our friend Anthony Granger from Eurovoix reported on 7 December 2015 : It has been reported by the press in Tatarstan that all regions of Russia that were due to compete in the 3rd Turkvizyon and 1st Bala Turkvizyon Song Contest have withdrawn from the competition.  The withdrawal of Russia’s regions from the contest came after the Ministry of Culture banned Altai Republic, Bashkortostan, Khakassia, Tatarstan, Tuva and the Sakha Republic (Yakutia) from remaining as members of TURKSOY .  Granger does not further analyse why this happened, but it seems that this had to do with the fact that Turkey and Russia were on opposing sides in the Syrian civil war since 2015, and political tensions were running high.  The International Organization of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY) is based in Ankara, Turkey, and exists to strengthen the ties of brotherhood and solidarity among Turkic peoples (...).  Apparently the federal government of Russia no longer wanted any of its constituent republics or regions to participate in organisations or events hosted in Turkey ( Turkvision Song Contest 2015 was held in Istanbul, Turkey on 19 December 2015) or primarily organised by Turkey – which it was indirectly at war with – which could potentially make the "Turkic" subjects of the Russian Federation disloyal to "Moscow", or otherwise more loyal to "Ankara".  This appears to have been a heavy blow to the potential future of Turkvision.  I've read contradictory claims about why the 2016 edition was cancelled; either due to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt , or the December 2016 Istanbul bombings .  Either way, this combination of political and military instability in Turkey, the wider region and its diplomatic conflicts with countries or regions of countries which would have sent contestants appears to have been behind Turkvision's eventual demise.  The only reason why the 2020 edition appears to have been able to go ahead was because it was held online, like so many events during the early Covid-19 pandemic.  All subsequent editions have been cancelled again.  If this is true, then maybe it wasn't anything the organisers did wrong, but political and military tensions, conflicts and instability beyond their control.  Otherwise this might have developed into a successful recurring contest like Eurovision.  In that sense it is perhaps a tragedy that it never became as notable and successful, and we're kind of left to clean up the remains of something which never became quite as notable as it could have been.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all .  This is not the Eurovision Song Contest , where the per country articles are justified.  The show is important enough to carry annual editions.  That's already something!  In the list above, especially the per country/region AND year articles are way over the top.  As for the regular by country or region articles, these summarizing stats will be sufficent .  The by country/region list could be extended with zero medals countries.  Elsewhere in the Turkvision Song Contest article, the canceled editions can be added to a list, detailing what had been decided by the time of cancellation.  Greater point – also for other nominations and editing – is that folks rush to create totally unnecessary SPINOFFs without making sure that all information readers will look for is in the main article.  gidonb ( talk ) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you also agree with my point that the Azerbaijan pages are an exception to this rule, and should be kept?  Or have I missed something, and should we consider them for nomination as well?  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] All Turkvison by country/region articles deserve to be deleted.  gidonb ( talk ) 04:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also agree that all Turkvision country/region articles should be deleted.  I do not see why Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest should be an exception, while there are a scattering of other source it is still primarily based on WP:ONESOURCE and should also be considered for deletion.  Sims2aholic8 ( talk ) 14:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all per nom.  I agree with Nederlandse Leeuw's points.  This contest never caught on to the extent where individual country articles would be necessary, and certainly not individual country articles for each edition.  There has been a continual lack of reporting on the event by media for years outside of Anthony Granger rewriting information from the contest's site.  Grk1011 ( talk ) 13:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Would you also agree with my point that the Azerbaijan pages are an exception to this rule, and should be kept?  Or have I missed something, and should we consider them for nomination as well?  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that 2013 , 2014 , and 2015 should also be deleted.  While there may be additional sources for Azerbaijan in particular, I'm still not convinced that the contest's overall notability warrants this level of detail.  I'm also extremely uncomfortable with the "incubation" of the artist and song information.  Both are also awkwardly repetitive.  The life of the artist is completely irrelevant and is only included because it otherwise does not meet the inclusion criteria for its own page.  Grk1011 ( talk ) 16:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/redirect .  There is something encyclopedic here, but not at that level of WP:FANCRUFT /detail.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 14:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree, but I would suggest that we should be very selective about which material is worth manually merging into the articles we will be keeping, and the stuff that can go as irrelevant or poorly sourced.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 14:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all per nom.  // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or merge or delete per above.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 17:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all per nom.  dummelaksen ( talk • contribs ) 22:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete all Lacking third party coverage to meet GNG.  LibStar ( talk ) 02:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of redirecting and whether these articles should ALL be considered for deletion or selectively.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz Why?  The result is clear.  I recycled the one reference at Russia in the Turkvision Song Contest I wanted to recycle, so I've got nothing else to salvage.  Poland in the Turkvision Song Contest is the only other article I (or anyone else) specifically suggested would be worth manually merging to anything else, but nobody has mentioned Poland ever again.  Piotrus and The person who loves reading suggested Redirect/Merge, but did not specify anything in particular to be merged.  With 5 Delete All versus 2 Redirect/Merge, the latter two not specifying what should be "Merged" exactly (after I implicitly asked Piotrus to specify what should be 'very selective[ly]' merged, receiving no response), there's nothing to consider for a selective merger.  If you like, we can keep the Poland article for now, but I will nominate it again in my next round where I will also include the Azerbaijan articles (as demanded by everyone whom I asked).  Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 05:00, 16 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete