Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eircom Spiders


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Eircom Spiders
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Kept at AfD in 2008 and PRODed recently by after it came to light that the article creator was part of a paid editing sock farm. The issue here is that this is a non-notable award stub that exists to promote the subject and that it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * delete per BEFORE one sees nominees and recipients saying "i won a spider!" and that is about it. non-notable thing that happens in the internet echosphere. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As old as the Webby Awards, and demonstrably the most notable Internet-related awards in Ireland. Have added a couple more sources and renamed the article to the correct current title of eir Spiders. --Kwekubo (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * addition of the following to the article is unacceptable. The quote is a) from a puff piece article and b) said by a guy who is selling how great his company is; and c) even on the surface is promotional as hell Hailed as "the Oscars of the Irish web and online world" (ref)   "Oscar of X" and "nobel of X " is classic promotional hype. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Personally I abhor undisclosed COI editing, paid editing, and sock farm editing behaviours. However, its unclear to me if that's the rationale for the nomination - or if there are other material concerns with the subject itself (or content itself) that would directly meet deletion criteria. For myself, I see two discussion points in the AfD nom. That the creator was a jerk, and that the content is somewhat promotional. The first point I won't disagree with - but that doesn't meet our expectations for AfD criteria. The second point is perhaps also worth considering - but wouldn't normally meet the AfD criteria alone (Except of course where, once all the promo is addressed, no material content then remains). For myself there would seem to be sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. I'm not aware of specific notability criteria for awards. Guliolopez (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * the basis of the nomination is that this fails N (and the reason why it was here at all was to promote it; that is relevant but not the core issue). Handwavy claims that there are enough independent, reliable sources with significant discussion of a subject, are not a valid basis for a keep !vote.  Would you please present these independent, reliable sources with significant discussion that you believe exist?  As I said I looked and I just found non-independent echochamber stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. To bolster my (apparently) "handwavy claims" that GNG is established, I would note that - yes - of the thousands of non-news results (and hundreds of news results) that return in a quick WP:GOOGLETEST, a high percentage are of the "we won an award - aren't we great" press-release variety. Of these however, I would note that quite a few of these examples are from non-primary sources, which are otherwise typically reliable, hard-copy print media, with at least a national reach, and therefore at least partially contributory to the notability of the awards themselves. Beyond a limited web-only "echochamber" sphere. I would also note that there is at least a reasonable amount of coverage of the awards themselves in similar outlets. While at least some of this coverage might fall into the "republished-press-release-as-journalism" category, there is enough of it to meet my understanding of GNG. My contribution/recommendation hasn't changed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and for linking to the old AfD! I'll apologize for my short nominating statement: I thought this would be a relatively non-controversial deletion that was procedurally declined for PROD because of a 9 year old AfD when our standards were lower.The sources you provided don't meet my understanding of the GNG because they are either coverage of the recipients, not in reliable sources (business journals rarely count for notability), or read like recycled press releases. I still haven't seen substantial coverage in independent reliable sourcing. If this is notable, which I don't think it is, it is at most borderline in which case WP:PROMO does become a factor in whether we keep or delete, and tips the balance here to deletion. Thanks again :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiya. RE: 'Link to old AfD' - you are very welcome. RE: 'Didn't expand on AfD criteria as though it'd be non-controversial' - OK, that's likely fair. RE: 'Some sources are coverage of recipients' - per my note above, I don't disagree; However the volume of this type of coverage suggests the awards hold some cachet (if not broader notability). RE: 'Some sources are barely changed press-releases' - I'd highlighted the same myself. However, I would note that most "non-negative" coverage of companies and related entities falls into this category in one way or another. And again, the volume, breadth and outlets picking-up these pieces represents non-trivial coverage IMO. In any event, of the many hundreds of AfDs I've contributed to over the years, I've probably leaned significantly more towards deletion than towards keep. As such I'd normally be the first to cry NN/COI/GNG/PROMO/SPAMO where I see it. In this case, I'm just not seeing it. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the article created for promotional purposes & the award itself looks to be a vanity award also created for promotional purposes. So win-win :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2017 (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.