Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike


 * 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   keep. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Same reasons as the prod brought up. List does not meet common selection criteria detailed at WP:STANDALONE (neither "Every entry meets the notability criteria" or "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." It also lacks references for verification violating WP:V. Not to mention it's very one sided and whenever an opposing view was added (even with a source for it) It was removed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: as nom. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, turn into a proper list article, with a proper definition (that excludes football chants on all sides!!) and do a complete rewrite to include responses by artists of all sides and none . This should include the people's art (the outdoor murals in various parts of the region), the satirical work of the cartoonists, photography, fine arts, music and poetry (I seem to recall Bobby Sands wrote poetry, as did several others of the blanket protesters). It's not unsalveagable, but it needs to be way more than a collection of republican songs to be worth having. Alternatively, retitle to List of Republican songs about the 1981 Irish hunger strike - which would be a perfectly reasonable list article.  Note that list articles where the main aim is a collation of otherwise non-notable topics needs reliable sources!!! of which I am seeing none so far. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Elen of the Roads. Article definitely needs work, but AFD is not cleanup. I am also confused and concerned by the nominator's comment "...whenever an opposing view was added (even with a source for it) It was removed" which implies that references for the items in the list do, in fact, exist. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I originally prodded this. If it is a list, the blue link would be to 1981 Irish hunger strike but there is nothing to artistic reactions (the closest would be a the "Commemorations" subsection of that article). The handful of items that have notability (1 song and 3 films) can be summed up in an existing article. This list does nothing for a better understanding of the subject and is little help navigation wise. The "Recordings by named artists/bands" is devoid of references so it is hard to verify. If this list were to be kept all of those would need to go leaving it of little value.


 * The "reference" that CoE mentions was a YouTube video from a nonnotable music group. An editor rightfully did not want it in but I do understand the frustration based on another editor allowing unsourced material in for items that are sympathetic of the hunger strikes. I mentioned on the talk page that some effort should be put in for the sources and nothing was done. O Finian has had since Oct 1 to improve the list (see: Talk:Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike if he felt it was important enough. This list is stalled and should be userfied to bring it up to the level appropriate for the mainspace if editors want to work on it. Further reasons for deletion are WP:DEL -> WP:NOT -> WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTADVOCATE (based on NPOV), and WP:NOT (based on original research).Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that the list is stalled. Have a look at it now.  Anyone who has loyalist reaction or international artistic work is welcome to add it - the deaths of the hunger strikers had a considerable impact outside of the UK and it should be out there.  I'm currently working my way through extensive selections of images on Commons as you can see.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur, I'm not having much trouble finding refs for many of the songs listed, although clearly it will need to be trimmed. Also, POV issues can be resolved by editing rather than deletion. I'm not sure why Fansite would apply, given that there's very little fancruft in the article as it stands. I also fail to see how O Finian's actions or inaction have anything to do with whether the subject is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please provide those refs. It isn;t exactly stalled anynore since some editors have added info since this discussion as open. Unfortunately, the response to a deletion discussion should not be the addition of unsourced material. The new "Street Art" subsection is missing some sources and I personally looked fairly hard for the cheesburger song which was readded for some reason.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the article, references are being added there, significant progress has been made in just a few hours. As for "the response to a deletion discussion should not be the addition of unsourced material", I believe that Elen of the Roads restored an item that had been removed with the hope that a source could be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not correct. Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuujinn, I did, since the complaint was that O'Fenian was removing material in a pov manner. Cptnono You can't have it both ways - either he was removing for pov reasons or he was removing because it wasn't sourced. As for the murals, the photographs don't need sourcing, and I have tried to make the sentences uncontentious (all the info comes from the data on the image file) while I get a source for more information. You'll have to give me a day or two though. It's not relevant for deletion that the article contains insufficient sources as its not a BLP. Also Cptnono, I haven't a clue what your cryptic comment is supposed to mean. In one diff I'm adding back something as I say, in the other, I'm clarifying what's in th flippin' list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want it both ways. The YouTube reference was not sufficient which is why I argued for its removal. I also do not think that hibeamlyrics.com is sufficient. Does it meet any of the reasoning at WP:RELIABLE? Stop adding information that is not sourced and stop adding references that are not from reputable sources. It could also be said that hibeamlyrics.com doesn't even say what the song is about but common sense could apply there. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And now this? "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." - WP:RELIABLE Cptnono (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what specifically bothers you about the lyrics sites? I'm not certain about the triskelle site, but the other two do not seem to blogs or forums, they appear to be commercial sites that collect and publish lyrics for songs in general. The claims that a particular song exists and has these words hardly seems controversial. That being said, this isn't really an appropriate venue to debate the quality of individual sources, we should move this part of the discussion to the article's talk page. The question here is, I think, whether the subject appears to be notable enough that sources can be found. We now have a number of newspaper articles as sources, it seems to me that notability is pretty clearly established. That the article requires improvement is clear, and I am sure many items on the list will be deleted as we work through them, but, again, AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an appropriate venue if people are saying to keep it while relying on poor sourcing to ensure that it happens. I did not see an "about us" page on the lyrics site but it does not meet the typical requirements of an RS. Who makes it and what makes them reliable. Furthermore, since notability is questioned for the items (which impacts the necessity for such a list unless the scope is changed to all not notable items as mentioned way up above) there is another problem. The noteworthiness is not asserted by the lyrics site.Cptnono (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, at this point I think you're arguing to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are certainly reliable sources for some of the songs, at this point the poetry section is, I think, well sourced, and the murals section is coming along nicely. To continue to argue for deletion of the entire article because you question some of the sources and some of the content makes little sense to me, as there are sufficient reliable and verifiable sources to support an article on this subject. In regard to the sites with music lyrics, what sources would you suggest we consult that you find reliable? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is barely a handful of properly sourced lines so the baby needs to go with the water :) IMO. If there was an article I could see the reason to have a list if more sources were found. There might be enough sources to write an article (not sure) but this list still needs to go until something like that comes to fruition as detailed in my initial reasoning.


 * And disagree about the mural section. Appreciate that sources are found for it but it is primarily a gallery that ignores the common layout of images in lists. That is for sure a discussion better off the deletion page unless that section is the deciding factor in any keep.Cptnono (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree. With 30 references added in about 24 hours, half of which are newspaper, magazine, or academic publications, it is clear to me that there's more than sufficient potential here for a decent article. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks to be an exaggeration. Most of the sources are not RS or are primary sources. However, this was a fantastic addition. If you had morelike that I could see an actual article instead of a list without a blue link to an article. Others that would be useful include some of the reviews like One or two line blurbs like could also be useful but would not assert notability. Doesn't look like half to me but if it is then the other half need to be removed which would severly impact the chances of such a list being suitable.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, my bad layout is not a valid reason to delete the article. And while I agree that it's turning into more of an article than a list, that's not a valid reason the delete the article either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, did you read my comment? "That is for sure a discussion better off the deletion page..."Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Elen reads good, but maybe not extracts meaning Cptnono intended - "unless that section is the deciding factor in any keep" not intended to be serious perhaps? On a more serious note, I'd actually prefer this to be an article than a list - the street art, poetry and literature sections could all easily convert to proper sourced text, and the long, long list of songs could cut back to the more notable ones, for which sourced commentary could be found as well as mere proof of existence (bearing in mind that a list under current guidelines only requires sourcing of existence and connection, not also of notability)Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have emphasized "the" deciding factor. See my comment up above if you haven;t had the chance. That street mural source is great. If we had more like it I would say go for it. Even if it is a stub (which there might be enough for more) it would be better then this list in my opinion. And lists do not require notability but they need to link to an article that is notable from my understanding. So maybe create the article (or radically change this list) and if split out any sort of list if it becomes to unwieldy in the article.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Youtube source I used is OK to use the source for the Cheeseburger addition under WP:SOURCES as the video is (And I quote) "Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article..." The reason I fell that that the youtube source can be used for that as It is really only showing that that song exists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are multiple problems with that YouTube video as a reference. Do we need to revisit it?Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. Normally this would be a no-brainer for a merge. However, as there are a lot of different murals/books/songs etc. written about this, it won't be the easiest job to merge in the information. Either way, an AfD's not the best place to discuss this - this is better in a merge or content debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to Cultural impact of the 1981 Irish hunger strike-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've built up the song section and added more refs I obtained from lexis-nexus. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.