This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the image-needed parameter once the image is added.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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):
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.
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).
As it is >1 year since my note above (to which I did not hear a response), and as there has been a further AfD discussion in the meantime (to which there was no apparent consensus that the subject fails the project's notability criteria), I am inclined to remove the template. (Not least as the intent in adding it seems to have been to prompt renomination for AfD [which has happened], to prompt further discussion [which has happened], etc). Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
