Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/There's No One As Irish As Barack O'Bama

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 Snowball Keep (non-admin closure), as consensus has clearly determined its notability. Okay, who's buying the next round of Guinness? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's No One As Irish As Barack O'Bama[edit]

Non-notable song, references don't really emphasise the song requiring its own article as with WP:SONG. The claim of notability based on youtube views isn't really valid considering 50000 views on youtube is on the low side. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - The claim isn't based on youtube views, however if it were, the other version of the song has 606,416.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake, I create this and it is afd'd, 6 hours later and without warning or discussion. Why? It is neutral and verifiable information that is best organised in an article rather than merging. Forget youtube this song has featured stories in a number of national Irish newspapers, the Boston globe, and the BBC - how many folk songs do that these days. That's multiple "non trivial" media outlets, if you want some jargon. There is no reason to delete this, no improvement to the encyclopedia by doing so, just the satisfaction of people who like to delete things...Keep--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC mention is a near empty page just displaying the youtube video, it's verging on trivial "look at this oddity". I made no arguments about the articles quality, but just because an article looks nice and is even verifiable does not make it notable. As for merging, I ask the question as to where could this article even be merged to even if we were to accept that the information is, in some regard, notable? The ending statement, about a deletionist agenda, is not an argument at all for its inclusion - it's an ad hom attack that ignores that if wikipedia were to accept"its not doing any harm" as an inclusion criteria then wikipedia would be inundated with "this is my friends new song about Obama". –– Lid^(Talk) 09:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has notability for that controversy surrounding it. ViperSnake151 14:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - The information is verifiable from good reliable third party sources - so why remove it. That's the deletionist fallacy, to which you have no good answer. Your strawman fails as such would not have good third party sourcing. I ask again, given that this is sourced, neutral and verifiable, how does the encyclopedia benefit from deletion?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The information is verifiable to the point that "there is a song about Obama's Irish heritage", not that the song is notable nor evidence the song requires an article on wikipedia. Your second question, the benefit of deletion, isn't an argument at all - the article fails to meet the requirement for inclusion on grounds of notability, yes it is sourced, yes it is neutral, yes it is verifiable, but that's the trees that fails to see the forest. The foundation of the article does not exist, and doing up all the bells and whistles of what good artcles require does not mean that the prettier an article gets the more it should be included on wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm keep per WP:GNG. These sort of nominations are quite unnecessary; tagging the article with {{note}} would have resulted in a much quicker and less drama-inducing resolution. the skomorokh 10:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not following - how does the GNG blatantly illustrate the article is notable? –– Lid^(Talk) 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - tick.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The coverage has been trivial; the MSNBC coverage was "twenty seconds" of the video; the BBC te is a youtube embed of the video; the Irish times coverage amounted to "Hardy Drew and The Nancy Boys made an appearance early to sing There's No One as Irish as Barack Obama which has brought them a measure of fame and also an invitation to an inaugural ball in Washington on January 19th." which leaves the Limerick Leader. The Limerick Leader's coverage is the only one that can be considered neutrally to be significant coverage, but as it is an isolated Irish newspaper article about possible plagiarism of the song rather than showing the song has independent notability for the song itself I fail to see how that can be used as significant coverage the song itself is notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is this for real? American coverage aside, the song has been covered by most of the most popular radio shows (and all major radio stations), all three national newspapers, the leading Limerick metropolitan newspaper, the nation's most popular chat show (and its least reputable), both television news services (RTE One and TV3). The song has been the exclusive focus of articles in the aforementioned newspapers as well as the Kansas City Star, Irish Voice and Irish World. But of course, you know all this already. the skomorokh 11:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to be of the impression we are all from an Irish background... ignoring which the claims you just presented aren't found in the article (aside from one source stating it was on Ryan Tubridy's radio show) –– Lid^(Talk) 11:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[indent] No, I am of the impression that we are all able and willing to Google a topic up for deletion. Unlike Scott I have not got a drop of Irish blood in me; I am merely willing to give a topic the research it deserves (and which I wish you had done WP:BEFORE). Though I know you mean well, to nominate an article created by an experienced user for deletion without first discussing it, tagging it or researching its potential is simply sandcastle-kicking. I hope this AfD is brought to a swift close and we can all move on. Sincerely, the skomorokh 18:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Well the article is new (6 hours at time of nomination) - but had you asked for more rather than nominating, this could have been avoided. Anyway, now you know do you wish to withdraw the nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The massive influx of peripherally Obama related articles whose only reason for existing is any peripheral relationship to Obama has caused my threshold for article patience to slip away into the nether. (E.G. at the same time I nominated this I nominated Obama Derangement Syndrome, both had existed for the same period of time but lying in wait on articles that "may" indicate notability in days, or weeks time, is in my opinion a self-viewing form of WP:CRYSTALBALL). –– Lid^(Talk) 11:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If your patience has slipped to the level that you are not willing to express concerns and ask if they can be met, then I suggest you desist from NP patrol until you recover. But, now you know, is there any need to continue this nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This has nothing to do with patience, and was more a gripe with select other articles. I must state, however, that the significant coverage isn't supported (currently) by the references in the article, only by the comment here by Skomorokh, and trying to portray this as some sort of deletionist agenda is just as invalid at the start as it is now. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That other crap exists is even worse as a deletion reason than as a retention argument. I ask again, knowing what you now know, do you still think this article should be deleted, and if so, why.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't citing other crap exists, if I was I'd be pointing at Obama Girland be voting for keep, and your passive aggression isn't particularly helping matters. All I know now is that a pair of Irishmen believe this is notable in Ireland, but haven't displayed that information in the article itself and the current articles state does not illustrate significant coverage even within Ireland. A geographic bias is in play here, where to the Irish this is blatantly notable while to a outsider they are failing to grasp something about this. My question back to you is whether these groups have just been playing the song, or something else, because playing a song isn't an indicator of notability to... every other song in existance really. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Em? I am not Irish. (Well, on my great-great-grandmother's side.....but I've never been there). But how would my nationality be relevant, if I were?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say nationality, I said geographic - this appears to be a localised divide between the information available to you who believe this article is so obviously notable, and me on the other side of the world is still trying to comprehend why this song is notable enough for its own article and can not find it in the article, nor in the sources provided. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I give up. The information is verified, the sources provided, if you're stuck in in your American incomprehension of said non-american sources, it really isn't my problem.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've read all the sources, comprehended all of them - none of them illustrate significant notability of the song that would require an article for its existence, only trivial mentions and a slight diplomatic row over copyright that would seemingly make the Black's who "copied" the song the more notable ones (and don't backtrack back to the argument about the articles existance doing WP:NOHARM). As for "the information is verified, the sources provided" I point to WP:NOT, specifically "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I am not attempting to make this difficult for you, I am only acting with the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind and that the standards of the encyclopedia are kept. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The coverage has quite evidently not been trivial, more to the point you can be certain President-elect Obama is going to visit Ireland at some stage and have his pint in his village, the existence of this article will be valuable at that stage and undoubtedly the article will be legitimately extended too. JohnHarris (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The second paet is less to the point, it makes the argument a case of WP:CRYSTAL and seemingly a WP:COATRACK for Obama's Irish heritage rather than simply ignoring the Obama connection and focussing on the song itself being notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to those who claim that the media coverage of this song has been "trivial", please note that it has been in the top five articles of the BBC News website's "most popular stories now" all day, giving it prominence on the BBC News frontpage. Hardly "trivial"! Pince Nez (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and here it's the number 1 editor's choice from the BBC News video and audio articles. Sure, this may be more of an internet meme than a classic track, but it's unarguably notable in terms of the amount of coverage it's getting. Pince Nez (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neutral, verifiable, sourced. rootology (C)(T) 14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets usual inclusion standard. No need to make an exception in this case. Wily D 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, keep per Rootology and Wily D. MookieZ (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Multiple independent sources=notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep- Also am adding it to the Internet Memes category. Tris2000 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's well referenced, the range of independent references illustrate notability, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. -- role^player 17:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Patently meets WP:MUSIC and no valid reason given by nom. – iride scent 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons above. Deletionism vanity example. Moncrief (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.