Talk:Russia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge with Alisa Kozhikina[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following advice and suggestions at a recent AfD in regards to another Junior Eurovision artist (Eliias), it has been recommended that all JESC biographical articles be merged into their respective country by year articles. This is so we avoid future WP:AfDs, WP:SPEEDY, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The content the BLP article can easily be explained in the context of this country by year article, and it is currently of a reasonable size that the merging of BLP article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Wes Mouse | T@lk 19:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. She is also famous in Russia for the 2013/14 Voice Kids. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Merging might be appropriate if she were a person known for only one event, Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014. But she is also notable for several other events. I would vote to keep Eliias for the same reason. BTW, there is no such thing as "JESC biographical articles". There are simply BLP articles. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is no indication of any other events that she is notable for. The list of songs all have Facebook or Soundclound links. As per WP:MUSIC she is does not qualify (not 1st/2nd/3rd in a notable contest). Case of WP:TOOSOON. Karst (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other comments[edit]

@My very best wishes: I am very aware that there is no such thing as "JESC biographical articles" and that they are simply "BLP articles". I was making reference to the former as that was how they were presented as for simplicity terminology during the AfD discussion for Eliias, which bt the way, was an unanimous merge !vote - so consensus was clearly reached. Hence why several policies were changed as a result, including point 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. (See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 19#Proposal to remove "Has won or placed in a major music competition." from "from Criteria for musicians and ensembles"). Wes Mouse ✒ 13:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps other pages like that can be simply redirected, but that one should go to AfD if you insist - this is not a person known only for participation in this event (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall of the discussion, it was suggested that only the top-3 placed artists from any Junior Eurovision should be given an article, unless if the person has already established notability prior to their JESC participation. Any artist that did not finish in the top-3 would simply have their BLP information written into the respective "[County] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest [Year]" articles. All to do with WP:MUSICBIO being change, and to avoid mass-AfD's (apparently). Wes Mouse ✒ 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she won any competition is irrelevant because she is known for a lot of other things not related to this particular competition, as reflected in multiple 3rd party publications about her - see here - she passes general notability guidelines for a person. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rules for English Wikipedia in relation to WP:MUSIC articles are evidently different to the Russian version. I'm sure she will develop her career further, but at the moment this is really too early. The only other mention is Voice Kids, which was used to select the candidates for the competition and is not notable and redirects to the adult version. Karst (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not talking about this very article; I am merely pointing out what was said in regards to all BLP articles for Junior Eurovision participants, in general. Because of the change to point 9 of WP:MUSICBIO, each BLP article for JESC artists would need to be reviewed on individual merit. For example, if they are notable for more than just JESC, then yes a stand-alone BLP article is warranted. If they have not done anything other than ranking below the top-3 of a Junior Eurovision contest, then they do not warrant an article, and any BLP content would be incorporated into the respect country article for that particular year of participation. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Karst is right here. Any rules and policies for Russian Wikipedia do not hold any strength on English Wikipedia. Only the policies and guidelines set out on English Wikipedia imply to English Wikipedia article. And it is those what take priority here. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am talking about English WP. However, most publications about her are in Russian (which is fine per our policies). In particular, Google news search on her name produces 1,300 hits [1], and the total numbers of hits on her name is 480,000. And a lot of them are actual publications about the person, not a garbage - I checked. If this is not a notable person, then I do not know who is. Your discussion on music is irrelevant. Please go to AfD if you wish, but I think this will be waste of time. If you suggested to delete page Russia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 or merge it into the page Alisa Kozhikina, that would be something more reasonable (I would not mind to delete that page), but this is not under discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes:. I don't worry. She clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO 1 and 2 and probably all of 9–10–11–12.
And I don't think this discussion is worth having cause the article already demonstates Alisa's notability. Like, if Karst and Wesley Mouse can't see the professional reviews on the right side, any administrator or any other person who decides to close this nomination will. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: we don't need to go to AfD, because deletion isn't a questionable factor here, as has been noted in the opening comment. Because of the discussion from the Eliias AfD, and the consensus to change the rules on WP:MUSICBIO, it was advised to place merge tags on all BLP articles for Junior Eurovision participants that did not finish in the top 3 of a contest. This was because it was advised that AfD would be a waste of time, as the only outcome would be merge anyway, based on those said changes to WP:MUSICBIO policy, not to mention it would just go against WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Also, you may want to familiarise yourself with the Google Hits Test, a those sort of arguments are strongly advised to be avoided at all times. WP:BIO, for instance, specifically states, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)". So to say this singer has over 1,300 hits proves no notability on the subject at all. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I also checked the sources themselves and found a lot of them to establish notability of the person. Look, I do not know much about music, but here is our main policy, and she clearly passes these criteria. And yes, I am talking only about this specific person and this specific page. You may be right about other similar pages - I did not check them. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: I used those similar arguments in the past on other AfD's, and they all got thrown right out because of MusicBio changes. Wikipedia really does need to be more transparent, as there are loads of policies and guides that contradict each other, and cause so many grey areas. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling she is notable per MisicBio. Yes, maybe she is, or may be she is notable as an actress, or as a TV personality or whatever. I would not mind making an AfD about it myself to clarify this question, however that would be WP:POINT.My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: the article runs more chance of being deleted if it went to AfD. That is why this merger has been put forward, because so many BLP articles on Junior Eurovision were nominated at AfD and 80% of them got deleted. It is best to save the remaining 20% that haven't been to AfD while we can, even if it means compromise and merge in order to avoid the deletionists getting their dirty hands on them. Wes Mouse ✒ 17:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a good idea to save some time. In fact, I checked a few these pages and agree that almost all of them should be simply redirected. The only page that clearly should not be merged or deleted is that one. In addition, I would also keep another page, but it is significantly less certain to satisfy our BLP notability criteria. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Betty (singer) should be kept to be fair, and I can always close down the merge nomination, per self-nom rules and whatnot. There is clearly evidence to show that even Alisa Kozhikina holds some weight to be kept as an article. But as I pointed out towards the bottom of this thread, a lot of the evidence is YouTube based, which there is a Wikipedia policy on the use of YouTube that prohibits us from using those link. If other sources can be found to show in written context what those videos are showing, then we have found the way out of the "YouTube" mess. Also from what the guides on WP:CHARTS state, if they are on sales-based charts then the top 100 is acceptable. If the charts are based on airplay only - and from what is known, tophits.ru are airplay-based charts - then the song needs to have reached top-40. If they don't then notability doesn't stand. If we can't find a way around both of these barriers, then we are back to square one and merge. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with YouTube. This link already provided above [2] produces hundreds publications about her, none of which is YouTube but newspapers and other similar publications that qualify as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow connestion brought YouTube into this debate below, when they provided YouTube links in order to fulfil criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MUSICBIO. Policy on WP:YOUTUBE prevents us as editors from using YouTube links as means of verifying content, because of copyright rules and what have you. I only learnt about that ruling a couple of years ago, after consultation from someone very high up in the Wikimedia Foundation ranks, who is an expert on copyrights. She said that YouTube couldn't be used on any article because of copyright, and she made me aware of WP:YOUTUBE, which is something I will never forget. Last thing I want is to be blocked for breach of WP:COPYVIO. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not check his links, but just keep in mind that that WP:YOUTUBE does not prohibit linking to YouTube, but only prohibits making copyright violations. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is the copyright side of things that worries me when using YouTube links, which is what I was trying to put across to Moscow connection below. I know I don't want to be blocked, and pretty much certain you wouldn't either. But he does seem to want to use those links, and if they are happy to breach copyright and be blocked, then it is of no fault but their own. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to waste time on this, but I wlll show you all just one link: [3]. (I won't explain what it means, but it's WP:MUSICBIO 2.)
Okay, and three more since I found them anyway: [4], [5], [6]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moscow Connection:, of all the points you list from WP:MUSICBIO, number 1 has always been rejected by closing admins on past merge/deletion discussions for other JESC artists. Number 2, OK her article lists singles, but they do not show their charting positions - so #2 would be ruled out, unless chart positions can be included and verified. She fails points 3 to 8. And definitely point 9 (unless of course you are counting a win from a reality talent show, which isn't exactly a "competition"). And points 10 to 12 are all failed too. Her bio article doesn't mention anything on her ever recoding a song that features on a movie or TV soundtrack (Junior Eurovision CD is not a soundtrack, it is a compilation album which is different). Therefore the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to keep the article to provide very strong evidence that fulfils one of the twelve criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection:, thanks for those links. But again, they all prove that WP:MUSICBIO 2 hasn't been met. WP:CHART states they have to have been placed in the top 100. None of them have peaked over the top 100. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Стала сильнее" did [7]. 27191 plays on the radio. The chart positions are as follows: 53 (General, it is approximately the whole of the CIS), 74 (Russia).
(Case closed, I hope.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection: perhaps the best recommendation for you would be to read the entire guidelines on WP:CHARTS. It would appear that only sales count. TopHit.ru is only based on airplay, and not sales. There is even a mention on Eurovision in WP:CHARTS. Worth a thorough read. You'd be surprised at what you might learn from the policy. I know I learnt a thing or two from reading it. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that only sales count.
— Why? Where did you see that? WP:CHARTS says: "It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources."
That's all I want to say. Sorry, as I've already said to My very best wishes, this discussion doesn't really matter. And I've provided too many proofs for Alisa's notability already. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"And points 10 to 12 are all failed too." – How do you know? How can you say something like this if you don't really know?
Okay, one last time:
WP:MUSICBIO 10: [8]
WP:MUSICBIO 11: I've already provided all the necessary links, but here they are again: [9], [10], [11], [12]
WP:MUSICBIO 12: [13]
--Moscow Connection (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have it @Moscow Connection:, failure to grasp the concepts of policies. I said points 10 to 12 had failed because there was no evidence to back them up. Hence why I said "the burden is on those who wish to keep the article, to provide evidence that fulfils the criterion". And I thank you for those links you have now provided. However, WP:YOUTUBE links are not permitted for citation purposes, because of copyright legislation - which is states explicitly in the guidance on using YouTube. So those links you have provided to back-up points 10 and 12 cannot be used, and thus those points have failed. You need proper readable sources if you wish to include the content. As for number 11, again the concept of "rotation" is probably being misinterpreted by yourself. Spin (radio), to which is also another word for radio rotation, implies to songs that have had regular daily/weekly airplay on the most heavily used at Top 40 radio stations. Naturally TopHits.ru is going to show airplay, because that is how their charts are compiled. WP:CHARTS states its sales that count, not airplay. The "rotation" airplay those songs had didn't even place them in the top 40, so thus they did not have strong enough "rotational" airplay. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and thus those points have failed – No, those points didn't fail. She passes the criteria simply because she passes them in reality. The fact that you don't like the links to YouTube or whatever doesn't change it. (The reality, I mean.) I've already provided enough proof and said everything. Please don't ping me anymore. I don't want to start a discussion on the definition of the word "rotation".
(Please don't ping me anymore.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I don't like the links to YouTUbe, it is because we cannot use them. Wikipedia rules says so! I would love to use YouTube to cite content. But if Wikipedia have rules that say we cannot use YouTube, then it is simple - we cannot use WP:YOUTUBE!!!. Can't you get that into your head? WP:YOUTUBE is a community-wide policy, a Wikipedia rule that are to follow. It is not based on I don't like it at all. I know that those YouTube videos show and verify points 10 and 12. But unless there is written sources, and not video links, then yes those points have failed verifiability and therefore we can only prove points 10 and 12 based on what we have seen, and which cannot be seen by others as we are not allowed to link to YouTube for citation purposes. It's not exactly rocket science! Find different sources other than YouTube. Very simple! Wes Mouse ✒ 17:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"we cannot use WP:YOUTUBE!!! — Don't shout, please. The guideline you are referring is not relevant here. We are now not in the "External links" section of an article, but on a talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously!? There is a big difference between emphasising a comment (using bold text) and SHOUTING (using entire capital letters). The fact that WP:YOUTUBE is stylised in full upper case lettering, does not mean I was shouting. It is how Wikipedia or whoever created the shortcut link chose to write it. And the guideline albeit on the external links also applies to the main body of an article. Like I said to another user above, I am fully aware of the YouTube rule, because a high-ranked member of WikiMedia Foundation, made me aware of the policy a couple of years ago, and anyone who does not comply to the rule would be in breach of copyright legislation and can result in their account being blocked. I know I wouldn't like to be blocked. Not sure about you, but if that is your personal goal on here, then go right ahead and breach copyrights. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could find written sources, but YouTube links are better. And I could probably find the same video on the TV channel's official website, but YouTube is more convenient for our purpose here on the talk page. (Our purpose is to establish Alisa Kozhikina's notability.)
Like, here's another copy of the music video: [14] and it links to a written announcement [15]. You can try and google-translate it.
You can also google-translate the pages on TopHit.ru. Cause you will see the words "rotation", "rotation" everywhere, some even in capital letters. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Providing YouTube links on a talk page is fine. But to use them in an article as a source is not. That is when copyright is breached - if they are not in compliance with copyrights and YouTube guidelines. Yes, YouTube links are better, but written sources are what is required unfortunately, and without such, then the content cannot be updated to fulfil the criterion 10 and 12. Which is why I said that both 10 and 12 have not been met - despite the fact there are videos on YouTube. The videos cannot be used as a citation. We need written sources. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have come across more guidance on this matter over the use of video links as citations. Wikipedia:Video links states that we must not link to any copyright violation, such as a music video or television show that has been uploaded illegally, on any page or for any purpose. I'm not sure if that last part interprets as meaning we cannot even link on a talk page; purely because it states "on any page or for any purpose". Another guide is BLP Sources, but it is very vague on its interpretation on what to use. As is Wikipedia:Citing sources, which doesn't help either! Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is neither use nor ornament - and basically tells us how to identify what a source is - I think we all know how to do that by now. Although I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist could become rather handy. Wes Mouse ✒ 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Youtube and Soundcloud links are WP:PRIMARY. It tells us nothing. One thing I did notice was her involvement in a cartoon where she performed as a voice artist? But it appears that film hasn't been released yet. I think we need to emphasise that nothing on the page will be deleted, only merged. If her career really takes off, the article obviously can be recreated. At the moment it really is WP:TOOSOON. Karst (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it WP:TOSOON? Can't you see the professional reviews and chart rankings? Don't you believe a Russian speaker (see comments above) who says that she meets WP:GNG. (Google News search). Surely, I'm AGFing, but... I think it's impossible not to see all that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that I did not believe a Russian speaker? I pointed out that the criteria for a music article on Russian Wikipedia are very different then here. And Wesley has already explained the points on the Google News hits and the airplay-only charts. I have no doubt that she has a fantastic career ahead of her. But at the moment all we have is a fifth place in a contest and an indeterminable list of singles with primary source links/references. As Wesley pointed out, we actually set out on the course of merging these articles as to avoid AfD's. This is a method of keeping the material, expand on it and if someone's career develops further, an individual article can be recreated. Karst (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I know that this is not a deletion discussion, and is only a merger proposal. But Moscow Connection, you really need to remember that using the Google Hits Test is suppose to be avoided in such discussions like this. Please abide to the written advice that is set in place not just for you and I, but for the whole Wikipedia community. Google hits does not establish general notability guidelines. A person who is notable in one country, may not be as notable in another. That is why Google hits is never used to prove WP:GNG. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading all of the advice at WP:GNG the last sentence does state that "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article". From the YouTube evidence and the airplay listings, she obviously has some verifiable facts, but not enough to fulfil criteria to warrant a stand-alone article. By merging the content, it still keeps all of the information noted, but within another article, as advised by WP:GNG, until she becomes of significant coverage that is a requirement of WP:GNG. Google Hits does not determine "significant coverage". Looking at the size of content on her respective article at Russian Wikipedia, there is enough to expand her article here on English Wikipedia, which is why I placed a "translation required" tag on her English article. If you, Moscow Connection, or anyone who is fluent in Russian and English, and is able to translate and expand, then feel free to do so. And then this discussion on merging can be re-looked at. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:. I think I should call admins. It's very hard to AGF what is happening here and I don't think it's a good idea to leave the merge tag on the page for another year. Enough is enough.
Okay, non-Russian speakers can't understand the sources... But the professional reviews? They have been in the article for months now. Can't Wesley Mouse and Karst see them? Just look. They exist. They are reviews and they are professional. It's WP:MUSICBIO 1 clear and simple. (They are impossible not to be noticed, but they are floating on the right side of the Alisa Kozhikina page, just below the infobox. Go and look everyone.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - asking @Drmies: to mediate. Karst (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karst, I'm sorry, but I can't be of much use in the next few days. Too much to read here, and too much to do back home. A quick glance here makes me ask why y'all don't just take this to AfC, citing precedent--but there's probably a good reason for that. Also, we finished 11 in the grown-up event, and I'm still smarting over that. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also going to ping @CT Cooper: too, as he is also an admin and is more knowledgeable on Eurovision-related issues. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can see them, Moscow Connection and no you are not assuming good faith here at all. It is a case of you not liking what is being said. And you have demonstrated that by forcibly telling users to "not to ping you any more". After all, this is English Wikipedia, so you shouldn't be expecting everyone to fully understand and have fluent knowledge of the Russian language. Especially when we are dealing with an article on a living person, which has by far more strict rules than any other genre of article. Rules, which you just don't seem to be understanding. The merge tag was placed because of admin intervention, in case you had forgotten, and for the simple fact that of all the bio articles on Junior Eurovision participants, more than 80% of them were nominated for deletion, some got deleted, some got merged, some simply got redirected with the content disappeared. We are here trying to save what is left of the articles, so that they do not get nominated for deletion and ultimately gone forever. Karst is right, that it is just a case of an article being created too soon, and by an editor (RebeccaTheAwesomeXD) who has already demonstrated that she is problematic, has been indefinitely blocked for making sock-puppet accounts, not once but 4 times. All of her work is under scrutiny anyway, as was her contributions which were all reverted by an admin because of her ban on editing/creating BLP articles. And for the record, this bio article was created by her whilst she was banned from BLP's so ultimately it should be deleted anyway. Holding this merge debate, is at least, giving her benefit of the doubt and keeping some content on Junior Eurovision artists. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please could some explain since when did "InterMedia" become a professional reviewing organisation? I don't see them on the list at Project Albums. So if they are not there, then they shouldn't be on here, and again we are back to the factor that no criterion of MusicBio has been met. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please could some explain [...] I don't see them on the list at Project Albums." — I think I can explain. It's probably because no one added it. But surely it is on the corresponding list(s) in the Russian Wiki: 1, 2.
    and again we are back to the factor that no criterion of MusicBio has been met — No, we aren't. The WP:MUSICBIO criteria 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 are still met no matter how you look at them. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK Moscow Connection, in your own words... enough is enough. Stop twisting words of others. Stop being disruptive. And stop with this all I don't like it and I can't hear you attitude. It is becoming pathetic, to say the least. Paraphrasing my comments is bad faith and ignorant on your part. Just because InterMedia doesn't show on English Wikipedia, but does on Russian Wikipedia, does not mean that the Russian Wikipedia is correct and the English one does not know what they are doing. You have already been told implicitly that InterWiki's (which are different language Wikipedia) do not follow the same rules and policies as each other - although I personally feel that all rules and policies should be the same, regardless of which language Wikipedia we work on. Just because InterMedia are on a list at Russian Wikipedia, does not mean we must use them on English Wikipedia. Sorry, but no. Rules are different over here - and if you don't like that, then hard luck, get over it! And yes we are back to the factor that no criterion has been met. I, and another user, has already pointed out that not a single one of the 12 criterion of MusicBio has been met. And you are not helping matters either by being so bullying and not listening to people who clearly know what they are talking about, and have backed up their arguments with policies and rules... and not just one, but several of them. This is getting no where, and you are certainly not cooperating or conducting your professionalism as an editor correctly. I think it is high time that this does go to AfD, as sad it is for me to say that. I personally do not want to see another JESC article get deleted. But you are not making matters any easier. The person does not warrant an article, they have failed several points of MusicBio and notability - and they are the policies for English Wikipedia. You are trying to impose rules from Russian Wikipedia onto English articles. That just cannot and will not happen. If Russian Wikipedia's rules allow for such an article to be created, then that is their choice. But if English Wikipedia rules state that we can't have such an article, then that is the path we must abide to. The bio article should have been deleted a long time ago, especially as it was created by RebeccaTheAwesomeXD who had violated her BLP ban by creating a biography article, when she was not allowed to do so. The fact that I am at least trying to save an article that shoiuld have been deleted 14 months ago, is being ignored by yourself. Wes Mouse ✒ 00:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh look, not the first time someone has been advised, informed, and warned over issues of this nature, and their conduct towards other's. Evidence 1, Evidence 2, Evidence 3, Evidence 4, and Evidence 5. Need I say or dig up any more? And if I recall, didn't you once say that you would never touch a Eurovision-related article or participate in any discussions relating to Eurovision material? Hmmm, isn't this Eurovision-related? Wes Mouse ✒ 02:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no personal attacks from me. Are you confusing me for someone else? And Wikihounding? Never! You and I have interacted in the past, so refreshing myself of our previous encounters is not hounding whatsoever. And you, you did say you wouldn't touch Eurovision related articles. Would you care for me to provide evidence of you saying that? Wes Mouse ✒ 03:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence as promised which read "I don't care about Eurovision-related articles enough" and "It would be easier for me just to surrender. I wonder why some editors are so persistent in small matters like this one." All posted under your user name. Or are you now saying that it wasn't you and your account was hacked by another person and they posted it under your name? Wes Mouse ✒ 03:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the quote say anything remotely like "I will never edit Eurovision-related articles"?
By the way, all this is completely off topic, can we return to the original theme of the discussion? --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I obviously agree with you that she satisfies WP:MUSICBIO and general notability guidelines. And why the dispute? I do not see any logic. Wesley Mouse seem to agree above that Betty (singer) is notable. OK, I too agree that page about Betty should be kept rather than merged, but Betty is obviously much less notable than Kozhikhina - based on press coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: you have assumed correctly in your summary of my comments. I do agree that Betty (singer) is notable. The main thing here that I have said all along is that I am only trying to preserve the remaining bio articles on JESC participants, seeing as the Wikipedia deletionists have a habit of nominating them all at AfD, and they ultimately get deleted. Is it wrong of me for wanting to try and keep these articles and their content in some shape or form, whether it be as stand-alone articles, or merged into more suitable ones? Kozhikhina's article is now starting to fulfil the notability criteria, purely because someone has finally got their brain cells working and translating the article from Russian Wikipedia into English, so that this article is of good standard. I just hope that person is following the translation procedures and will be applying attribution on the article talk page of the user(s) at Russian Wikipedia who contributed towards that article. Wes Mouse ✒ 14:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have no objection to merging all other pages from this set except pages on Betty and Kozhikina. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking only about the 2014 Junior Eurovision participants? (You surely do.) Cause you see, Wesley Mouse placed merge suggestion tags everywhere. Almost every single article about a Junior Eurovision participant is tagged. There are many, many notable artists. Some are famous as singers, some are regulars in the news for other reasons. (It would have probably taken days for me to check all these articles and I'm not going to do it. I'm not even going to look at all the articles about the 2014 Junior Eurovision participants cause I don't have that much time to spend now. But I've seen quite a few articles that were tagged wrongly. [It was an expected outcome cause, as I said, almost everyone was tagged, without any attempt to evaluate their notability.]) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took three or so very simple sentences from the Russian article, but I didn't translate them word by word. I don't think attribution is needed. (And they were very basic and represented simple facts.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I talked only about 2014 Junior Eurovision participants. I think these pages should be checked individually, and a lot of them indeed qualify for merging, but not all of them. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection and My very best wishes: merge tags were placed on every JESC participant because that was the advice given from administrators after the discussion at one of the AfD's and also the RfC discussion that resulted in the change to MUSICBIO criteria. The advice was to tag them all, and discuss each of them on a individual basis, as each case is going to be different. Any that are notable become kept, and any that are not become merged. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, everything is cool except merging a couple of pages we talked about. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a good idea...
You see, I don't know what admin suggested that, but there are many people who think that Wikipedia has an unlimited amount of users who are willing to spend their time here. And that if a singer is famous, the fans will notice and will do all the necessary work and expand and save the article. It's not so. If you tag a random article about a Junior Eurovision participant for merger, there is a good chance that no one who cares will come to the discussion and the article will be merged. Cause there are actually only a few people here who both care and understand how Wikipedia works.
And just think about it. If you merge all these articles, it will require an experienced Wikipedia user to unmerge them. Some of these singers are actually notable, but there will never be articles about them again. Never. Now at least they are on Wikipedia for everyone to see and expand. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia_in_the_Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2014&oldid=1210154485"