Talk:Eir Spiders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Golden Spider Awards)
Jump to: navigation, search


The latest AfD closed as no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eircom Spiders, so it's appropriate to retain the tag, until such time that a consensus develops that the subject meets GNG. It's too early to re-nominate, while the tag alerts editors that more work on the article is needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for opening the thread. As you note, the latest AfD closed (unfortunately) without a clear consensus on notability. However, while you note that the NN template is added to prompt editors that work is needed (on the article/content), my understanding of the purpose/usage of the template is that not really what it's for. To paraphrase the template usage guidelines, we wouldn't normally use this tag where article content needs work. Rather as a prompt to other editors to verify notability. Given that the AfD process (involving about a half-dozen editors) was unable to establish this one way or the other, what would a single editor who happened upon this be expected to "do"? (Apologies if I'm missing a trick, just trying to understand the goal. Do we see it as a "parking hatnote" prior to a future AfD?) Guliolopez (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The template would list the article under CAT:NN, and it would likely be renominated for AfD, merged, redirected or would have its notability confirmed at a later time. It also prompts the discussion, i.e. the one we are having now.
One option is to merge the content to eir (telecommunications)#Awards. Since the firm is sponsoring it, it seems appropriate. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hiya. In honesty I'm still kinda stuck on what the template is for. You mention that the goal is to see the article listed under NN - to potentially be relisted for AfD/redirect/etc. However, given that two previous AfDs were inconclusive in that regard, I'm not sure what new outcome might be expected. In any event, on the two points you raise (NN/redirect):
  1. Notability - For myself, as I mentioned during the second AfD, while the original content had discomforting COI/PE/PROMO overtones, the subject itself meets my understanding of the expectations of SIGCOV/GNG. Not to rehash the argument, but in the volume of coverage there is granted a lot of (self-published) "we won an award - aren't we great" examples, quite a bit of (republished) "they said they won an award - we're republishing their PR" coverage, a chunk of (quasi-independent) "the promoters of these awards are good at their jobs - we're republishing their promo" style articles, and a smaller percentage of (perhaps more independent) "this person/company won one of these awards previously - we'll list it as an example in this general biopic" style examples. The volume/weight of these 4 types of coverage is what would seem to support a GNG argument. At least in my view. And at least to the same extent (in the sense of "precedence" rather than an "OSE"-style argument) as the other members of Category:Computer-related awards or Category:Web awards etc.
  2. Merge - For myself, as above, I think the subject has a notability that is independent of the sponsors (Eir) or the organisers (B&F magazine). And so wouldn't propose a merge/redirect myself. However, if there was consensus to merge/redirect, the target would likely be the B&F magazine article. Rather than the Eir article. (In that the sponsor is perhaps likely to change. The organiser maybe less likely to change).
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)