Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mullans

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 merge to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Mullans

The Mullans (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)

Seems to be notable only for one event : WP:SINGLEEVENT. Article lacks other notable albums or songs by the group which may have charted. Lacks information regarding the group/band's activities outside Eurovision event. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

*Keep - Eurovision itself is notable enough as you already know and articles such as this are covered by WP:BIO1E. Wesley Mouse 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - what is the point of this nomination?. covered by WP:BIO1E.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed [1]

• I find it highly offensive that a user has falsely accused me of canvassing without justification. As a member of WP:EURO I was acting in good faith to inform another member of the project of an article discussion - know that they didn't have the article alerts page on their watchlist. I felt it polite to allow a member of the same project the opportunity to participate in a discussion and make their own !vote choice. Wesley Mouse 14:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Justification = BabbaQ votes keep 99.9% of the time. Wesley mouse failed to notify those who are known to vote delete. It's offensive not to notify a wide range of editors. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Still assume good faith Libstar. I have no reason to !vote Keep if it is a Delete worthy article. Me and Wesley are members of the same Eurovision wikiproject and both have knowledge about the contest and its participants and that is the main reason to why Wesley notified me, not because he wanted a Keep !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Wesley mouse informed a wide range of editors I would have no issue. Selective notification arouses suspicion. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Wesley have understood your point even though he is of another stance then you, and I have added the notification article now on any AfDs concerning Eurovision. Case closed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you had suspicions LibStar, then why didn't you engage in a polite discussion at my talk page first and find out if canvassing had occurred before jumping to the wrong conclusions and posting false accusations about myself which is by far a more serious violation than the one you are accusing me of. Wesley Mouse 14:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wesley just WP:LETGO . LibStar (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you for real? You throw false accusations at myself, and then expect me to just ignore them and move on? Either resolve this matter or retract your false accusations - can't have it both ways. Wesley Mouse 15:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LETGO LibStar (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see how WP:BIO1E applies to this at all -- this article isn't a biography. And if it was, it seems to me BIO1E would support deletion, not keeping. As it stands, being a group, this article must meet WP:BAND. And that does not seem entirely the case at this point. -- BenTels (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reply to comment: Project Eurovision from what I gather has gone through similar cases like this and WP:BAND was questioned many a time; and people were told that WP:BIO1E covers articles relating to Eurovision Song Contest participants, as the majority of them only ever participate once, with the odd handful making returns. As the contest is notable within its own right due to the grand scale of the contest and long-standing global recognition then an article relating to an artist participating in the contest would warrant an inclusion. That is the way I have interpreted it all this time based on comments/advice of others. But looking at the criterion at WP:BAND then this article most certainly covers points 9 and maybe even 10 in that list - and WP:BAND does state that at least one criterion needs to be met. Wesley Mouse 00:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Wesley on his description of the matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment: Aside from the question of whether or not the EuroVision is sufficiently notable to carry over under WP:BIO1E, that still doesn't explain why that policy should suddenly apply to what is clearly not a biographical article. As for WP:BAND, number 9 applies to winners and runners-up, not #16. And point 10 is not about contestants (plus it says that if that is the only claim to notability, a separate article is probably not warranted). -- BenTels (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't mean to offend anyone close to WP:EURO. With all do respect, the song contest is indeed a grand-scale event but just like other notable events/competition/TV programs like The X-Factor or American Idol, many articles based on its participants of the show were often challenged for deletion as they don't seem to have any notability beyond the competition. A simple search online yielded nothing else from The Mullans beyond the competition or any recent/late activities within their country that would meet WP:BIO1E so I nominated their article. Bleubeatle (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is offended. Just surprised that someone wants to spend time with discussing this subject of Eurovision notability over and over again. And also bring AfDs up like this one which are destined to end with a Keep. Just a bit odd. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is quite interesting that on WP:EURO there are 6 project goals, with one of them regarding articles for Eurovision songs and artists (seen here). Either the project on a whole are doing things incorrectly, or guidances are being misquoted. If its the former then serious discussions between project members would be urgently needed. If its the latter, then it does raise a question as to why are so many Eurovision-related articles are all of a sudden being mass-nominated for mergers/deletions etc. The odd one every now and then would be plausible, but this past couple of months has seen quite a large increase in articles being nominated for one thing or another. Wesley Mouse 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Group fails basic notability. Being a part of Eurovision does not account for notability. Statυs (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually participating in the worlds biggest music competition on television does. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Representing an entire nation is notable too.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show me the Wikipedia guideline or policy that shows that if you participate in Eurovision, the hell with Wikipedia's notablity guidelines; it doesn't apply to you. Please; I'd really like to see it. Statυs (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Using swear words to justify deletion of a notable article seem to be non-productive. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, that's enough now. We seem to be having a difficult time understanding each other and this is now leading towards frustration. Remember to comment on the content not the contributor. Therefore I'd suggest not replying to one another if neither party is benefiting in the discussion. Peace Bleubeatle (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: According to WP:BAND "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:" and then it gives a list of 12 criterion. Of the 12 criterion the majority of articles for Eurovision participants fulfil points 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Now some users will probably question how I can justify that a participant would fulfil each of those points. That is quite simple, but one that would be lengthy to add here - and I wouldn't want to get another mouthful of abuse for being "long-winded" with my responses. Wesley Mouse 11:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment about the points BabbaQ is raising; I've read through WP:NMUSIC once more and it says "failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." There may be other points that could be raised other than the group's involvement/participation at this event perhaps?. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well then Bleubeatle, you have just hit the nail on the head and even given yourself a reasonable answer to this whole debacle too. You have rightfully noted an article fulfilling any of the criteria doesn't mean it should be deleted nor does it mean they should be kept. So it is clear that we need to RfC this on a whole covering a wider perspective of Eurovision-related articles, before making a decision whether to nominate articles - thus rendering this and any other current AfD's meaningless unless we know a clear stance on where to go from here. Wesley Mouse 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Seeing as we reach this situation every time a Eurovision article is nominated for AfD, and the same arguments get thrown across the cyberspace - then it looks like we need to engage in ARBCOM discussion in order to have a more broader consensus from a wider comunity in regards to Eurovision-related material. This would be highly beneficial as we would be able to determine once and for all how the WP:EURO project as a whole should be conducting their business, and when an article should and shouldn't be created. Wesley Mouse 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Also Bleubeatle is now wanting to influence the closing of this and another article. While at the same time accusing me and Wesley of doing so--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no influence going on in that RfC. Neither was I making accusation of you or Wesley Mouse of canvassing. I said "allegations" have been raised by a user" and it worries me how these AfDs are leading. I can understand your frustration here but taking it on someone like this won't achieve anything. It will only cause disruption from both parties. I suggest you refrain from making anymore points like this until a non-involved neutral admin comes along to assess this consensus. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Different words, same meaning. The only one not gaining from making baseless accusations is yourself. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notice to closing admin - This discussion has been contaminated severely seeing as there accusation of canvassing between myself and BabbaQ. And other users appear to be doing the same in order to gather support for mass-deletion of Eurovision articles. Diffs are as follows - 1, 2, and 3. People shouldn't cast accusations of canvassing, and then go about the same actions themselves. Wesley Mouse 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or merge and redirect to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. There is no sources describing enduring coverage of the group around the time of the event, meaning they faded as soon as they lost. That's a flash-in-the-pan, and not appropriate for articles on WP. While WP:BAND may give several criteria that are met here, those are only presumed notability, and it is being challenged due to lack of sourcing, so this is a case where that presumption has subsequently failed and ergo there should not be an article for this group. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not the point. Being nationally selected by a country to represent it at the world biggest televised music compeititon is within WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I just explained that BAND/MUSIC is only a presumption of notability, and not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 - Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suntribe. In a summary, notable under WP:NMUSIC but having a bio and an a entry article is unnecessary per WP:BIO1E, and really it makes little sense having two articles which de facto cover the same subject - an entry into a contest. CT Cooper · talk 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. Since the group has no notability outside the event covered by this page, having two articles is clearly redundant. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 - Changing my original !vote from keep to merge. In hindsight of what has been said (albeit some harsh comments aimed at myself too) a merger does seem more plausible rather than a complete deletion. A lot of the guidances quoted appear to conflict with each other, with some links backing-up a deletion, and some backing-up a keep. This causes great concerns to myself personally as having conflicting guidelines leaves situations open to interpretation or even loopholes within the system, and that isn't cooperative nor helpful to any user old or new. What may be perceived as an overall solution to and prevention of future scenarios like this from reoccurring would be for some sort of medcab or request for comment within WP:EURO to establish a future president for articles relating to Eurovision participants/songs. Wesley Mouse 14:48, 13 August 2012 (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.