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. Sandstein 15:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eir Spiders[edit]

Eir Spiders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable under any name they're currently or previously known under. No coverage, barely even passing mentions. Fails GNG, NEVENT, NCOVERAGE. Praxidicae (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article subject has been through AfD twice before. Once closely following its creation in 2008 (result was 'keep'). And once close to a year ago in 2017 (result was 'no consensus'). While I did not participate in the first AfD discussion (2008), I did participate in the latter (2017). As nothing seems to have changed since then, my recommendation remains the same. Keep. (Based on the fact that, while much of the coverage is trivial, self-published or promotional in tone, there does seem to be enough passable independent coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV). Guliolopez (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD from ten years ago doesn't really mean much and I don't see any changes from then to now, either. The AFD itself wasn't even strong on the keep side and policies and inclusion criteria have been more fine tuned since that time. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praxidicae. Thanks for your note. I wasn't saying that the outcome discussions should somehow stand (the 'gospel according to Wikipedia past') :) Just highlighting that the discussions had occurred (something that wasn't perhaps immediately obvious from the original nom template). And that, perhaps, a number of WP:BEFORE efforts might be covered in those previous discussions. (Like a list and link of previously identified coverage points/etc). Personally I'm not wedded to the outcome of either AfD. As noted by Smallbones, the outcome of the first AfD was almost analagous to a "merge/redirect" outcome. Except that no target was identified. If the outcome here is "keep/redirect the title / merge the content" then I'd advocate the Business and Finance article as a target. And would assist with it. (Certainly, after 10 years, if the content hasn't been expanded beyond a few sentences, then that might support an argument for merge/redirect. However, while length is a consideration in a merge discussion, it isn't typically relevant in an AfD review). Guliolopez (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. Actually, Praxidicae, as I have you, can I ask you two quick and genuine questions about the nom?

1. In the nom you suggest that the subject fails NEVENT and NCOVERAGE. While I'm personally unsure of the the applicability of NEVENT to this particular subject, which criteria are you referring to by the the shorthand "NCOVERAGE". Is it WP:SIGCOV?
2. In the nom you suggest that there is "no coverage" and "barely even passing mentions" of the subject (in reliable sources). In honesty I am a little confused by this argument specifically. The subject is the primary topic of more than a few reliable (print) publications - that have at least national reach. Like the Irish Independent and Irish Times. And also the primary topic of coverage in other seemingly reliable (online) outlets. Like SiliconRepublic and IrishTechNews. A question could perhaps be asked about the triggers for this type of coverage (some of it could perhaps be characterised as "press releases as journalism", and hence perhaps a claim could be made on its "independence"). I don't think, however, that this type of coverage can be characterised as "nonexistent" or "a passing mention".

As before, personally I'm not seeing the argument for deletion. (As there does seem to be enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV). But, other contributors might be interested to hear more detail on the argument (and the policies on which those arguments are based). Guliolopez (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 3 short paragraphs can be said about this, but that doesn't mean it's notable. One ref is about a winner of the prize - these type of articles are usually considered promotional (for the winner) so should not be considered a reliable source. Two other refs are definitely promotional and published by the Irish Independent which is a sponsor of the prize. The article starting "The Queen of Ireland, Panti Bliss, ..." is interesting, but obviously not reliable. No other contenders for independent (small i) reliable sources. My review of the previous AfDs - well, either could have been closed as delete or merge. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - meets WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on how exactly it meets GNG and what those sources are? Praxidicae (talk) 10:43 am, Today (UTC−5)

• no need for an editor to so, the closing admin will, though, consider the lack of Justification and evidence offered. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any significant coverage other than maybe the quasi-promotional independent article. A lot of mentions about how "we were nominated!." Fails WP:GNG, and if WP:NORG applies to award events? that as well. SportingFlyer talk 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but willing to be convinced otherwise Absent evidence to the contrary, I would have thought the Irish Times and Independent articles would substantiate notability, no? They're clearly about the awards, they appear to be independent of the subject, they're reliable sources. What am I missing here? FOARP (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @FOARP: Independent isn't, er, independent, they're one of the event's media sponsors, says so in the third graf or so. The other article is about four sentences long and invites the public to send an email to vote for one of the awards, hardly significant coverage. SportingFlyer talk 12:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there's good reasons to believe that the Independent isn't Independent. The Times articles, whilst short, do seem to be coverage of the awards - I mean, it's not a glancing reference in a long piece. They are short articles, but it is clear what the article is about. Still a weak keep ATM but if there's a good reason to disregard the Times pieces as well I'd flip to delete. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2018 (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.