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. Although the case for notability is weak here, I don't think it's weak enough for me to disregard the arguments of the keep voters. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. The article is very promotional in tone. All of the sources are local coverage from the Bad Axe paper, self-promoting quotes from others on the National Grandparents' Day website, or trivial (a two-sentence review on his single, a couple brief blurbs in the Detroit Free Press — "Disc of the week" is definitely trivial). A search on Google News found nothing that wasn't from the Bad Axe paper, and Google Books gave nothing. This article has a lot of words, but says very little about what makes Prill notable. Having a lot of famous people give you lip service is not notability. Even his official song for Grandparents' Day is barely an assertation, as I can't find any secondary sources to verify it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article was successfully deleted in 2009, and was re-created in 2011. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator --Artene50 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTAVOTE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See 'if the nominator clearly expresses your opinion on the matter, making you parrot their statement instead of just saying 'per nom' is needless bureaucracy'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - This person passes WP:BASIC per the following reliable secondary sources (they were found in the article): [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the part about "All of the sources are local coverage from the Bad Axe paper"? You can't build an article entirely on local sources. I've been in the Oscoda paper several times; does that make me notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanispamcruftisement Gets a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Note that the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is his own personal website. Winning one of one years National Grandparents' Day council's songwriting is not a major a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. This is a topic that is already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia and has reliable sourcing. Thus there is no case here for deletion of the redirect, and no case is being made that there is objectionable material in the edit history that requires deletion. I agree that the article has promotional tone, but so too does the article here and here. IMO the attention given to Prill by Stabenow and Seeger contributes to wp:notability. The Carter picture, comment, and signature is interesting; it doesn't in prose show that Carter knew anything about Prill except his first name; yet attention goes from the former president to Prill's connection to National Grandparent's Day. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really think having famous people kiss your ass = notability? WP:NOTINHERITED. All they did was pimp him out. They are not reviewers. Every argument you've made so far is "He's notable because he has a tangential tie to another notable thing", "What about X?", and your "already covered elsewhere"/"has reliable sourcing" comment is immaterial. This has nothing to do with National Grandparents Day's notability; it has to do with his notability. Just because the holiday is notable, doesn't mean he is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliably sourced, the so called "National Grandparents' Day website" is Prill's own personal website, not an independent reliable source. The only reason that this info exists here in three different places is because one person decided to spam the same cruft into three different places. He claims to have the "official" song but who makes it official? the National Grandparents Day Council of Chula Vista, California. Who are they? What makes what they say official for a public holiday? Was the song official for only the year in which he won the contest then official goes on to the next winner? We don't know cause it's a minor contest reliable sources don't seem to be covering and the only info we are getting is coming from Prill himself. This article should be deleted and this self serving spam removed from other locations. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The National Grandparents Day Council, "Who are they?" "The National Council of Grandparents Day (National Grandparents Day Council) is a nonprofit corporation established by descendants of Marian M. McQuade, founder of National Grandparents Day." ref. The article also gives attention to Johnny Prill. Unscintillating (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 04:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The promotional tone of this article makes it suspect, but the bottom line is this guy is not notable enough. The bulk of the sources are gleaned from "nationalgrandparentsday.com" a place I don't think is verifiable enough. Interestingly, that article on WP was/is edited by the same person who created this guy's. The other sources are local newspapers. Nothing substantial, national or distinguished. That's not enough for him to pass WP:GNG no way, no how.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Muldoon is an example of an article sourced with two "local" sources; where one book had an ISBN not listed at Worldcat; and about the other book an editor posted, "To the best of my knowledge the book was merely printed locally, not published.". The newspaper in the current discussion is available worldwide on the www. As for the Stabenow reference, it is a picture of a letter from a senator. It is either reliable or it is a forgery. Is somebody that has attracted attention for volunteering in nursing homes and has attracted attention from politicians, writers, and musicians for promoting grandparents, going to resort to a forgery that is easily tested by writing to the Senator's office? I think not. I also note that the previous post has overlooked an international source I provided on 31 July in my previous post. WP:GNG only requires two "good" articles to establish wp:notability, a benchmark which is surpassed here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the Governor kissing your ass = notability? No. That's called riding coattails. Also, the availability of the sources is immaterial to notability. Whether they're only available locally or online has no bearing on notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, for someone who is quite active on AfD, you should know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is, I don't care if Bobo Smith has an article and his sources haven't been updated at all since his proud grandmother created it. All I care about, Sir, is if this guy has some independent, verfiable sources. And it has come to my attention that this "www.nationalgrandparentsday" is his site. So not a source that is strong, if even valid. And the bulk of the references link to this promotional site. As for the picture, again, it is great for Bobo to have a picture of him, say, shaking hands with Bill Clinton. But while Clinton is notable, Bobo is not. Same applies to Mr. Prill, who does not pass WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the concern represented by the copyright on the grandparents website when I stated, "IMO the attention given to Prill by Stabenow and Seeger contributes to wp:notability." There is an argument to be made that the ~~Clinton~~ Carter picture could have been routinely obtained, and therefore shows no wp:notability, but I don't see how the Stabenow and Seeger pictures can exist without the politician and the singer directly attending to Prill, i.e., the pictures reliably show that Prill is "attracting attention" from the "world-at-large". I think it is reasonable to believe that Prill posted the two pictures. I see nothing wrong with a source providing evidence of wp:notability, it makes our job as editors easier when sources provide such. The promotional tone is a different problem, promotional tone is a content issue. wp:notability as per WP:N is not a function of the content of Wikipedia articles. To run through the main points again, the National Grandparents Day is nationally recognized by congress, and Prill is a prominent part of this story. As such there is no case for deletion of the redirect. Nor is there any case being made for deleting the edit history (the promotional tone can be fixed with ordinary editing). If there is no case to delete the redirect, and no case to delete the edit history, there is no case for deletion<full stop> Further, a variety of secondary sources in the article, and more found for this AfD, support the position that WP:GNG and WP:N are satisfied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Sir, please see comments above in regards to photo by "ten pound hammer."Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a prominent part of the day. There may be an argument that he is a prominent part of the story of the self created council, but I don't consider that to be so. But not of the day. The song might be the official song of the council as mentioned in your link to the story about the council but that gives it no other status. The passing mention in that article is trivial coverage. The. Ouncil itself gets hardly any coverage And prill is only a trivial part of that so to leap to call him a prominent part of a related story is wrong. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:DUE prominence is defined not by Wikipedia editors but by reliable sources. And trivial coverage is something like a listing in a phone book. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have not given him prominence, just passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Highbeam preview of a 2004 article about Prill in the Polish-American Journal and here is an amusing music review in the lasvegasmercury that is comparable to the review already cited in the article from the Las Vegas Weekly. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First one still looks like run of the mill PR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{ec} Please state your evidence. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Sir, username "duffbeer: makes a good point, the mention in the sources are topical. The "review" you listed (second source) is merely a capsule. I do understand you are invested in preserving this article, but I don't see him as a lynchpin of the day. From your argument, it would see Prill is. But indeed, Prill is a pawn. The picture you mentioned doesn't fit WP:GNG per my Bill Clinton argument in previous comments.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE is a policy that says prominence is determined by sources, duff is using a definition of prominence that bases prominence on his/her personal opinion. As per the text at the start of every AfD edit, "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements". Being a linchpin is not what WP:N is about, see the lead of WP:N. See also WP:Redirects for deletion. I mentioned three pictures, two of the three IMO clearly show attention being given directly to Prill, which as per the nutshell of WP:N goes to notability. Each non-trivial source contributes to wp:notability, some more than others. We have singers; politicians; four different newspapers in Huron, Detroit, and Las Vegas; an independent council in California; a foreign language article; the list goes on. As per the nutshell of WP:N, the "world-at-large" has given Prill "sufficiently significant attention". Even if you argue against "sufficiently", you still have no theoretical case for deletion, so none of the delete !votes are making policy-based arguments. As per recent analysis such non-policy delete !votes might be rehabilitated with partial weight as "redirect or merge somewhere" !votes. But if there are no editors arguing for redirect or merge, there is no place to assign these !votes but with the "keep" !votes. This is the point at which a closing administrator may restore the standing of the delete !votes to declare that there was no consensus at the AfD, but this type of close encourages the cycle of unnecessary AfD nominations and non-policy-based Delete !votes to continue. There are other possibilities, but the best long-term result for the community here is a close as "Keep". Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not basing it on my opionon of prominece. I'm basing it on what independent reliable sources have written, or rather in this case not written. If the pictures you are refering to are the ones on his site then they are not independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: To give more time to comment on the new sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep On the minus side, about 10 of the "references" are NationalGrandparentsDay.com which is his OWN web site. On the plus side, regarding real-world notability, if the claims are true, some major folks have recorded songs written by him and has received some reviews. Also there are 4 sources which appear wp:notability-suitable. Two are too hard for anyone to quickly check (old and off-line) and two are on-line and look suitable. The wording style is not too promotional, but the choice of material to cover is. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In terms of the "sources" listed, I agree the bulk of them listed are from his own website. By default I consider this promotional! Moreover, local newspapers are not considered "independent" by Wikipedia. Also, this [5] is a capsule. Not extensive coverage. Merely passing mention. Despite the multitude of "sources" listed, not one confirms notability. And, for the record, Sir, I do see "duffbeer" as having a point here. The impetus of this article was to promote this subject, and this "day" and unfortunately this makes the notability factor a hard sell. The lack of independent sources and appropriate coverage just seal the deal for a delete.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you overall, but where did you hear "local newspapers are not considered "independent" by Wikipedia."? North8000 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this [6] a straight-foward layout of what is independent, and what isn't. What we have for Prill isn't much in the way of the former. One of the many reasons this guy is not notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2012 (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.