Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Prindle (2nd nomination)

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 delete. the delete arguments wer ebetter based on policy and guidelines Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prindle[edit]

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

Procedural relist from deletion review. There are more references than when this article was previously deleted at AfD. There are still concerns, however, related to notability of the subject and the reliability of the sources presented in the article. The closing admin should also be aware of the potential for single purpose accounts in this dicussion. As this is a procedural relisting, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mark Prindle is notable. He's been quoted and printed in published books. He's had a biographical blurb in a published book. He's ran stories for Maxim UK and Spin. He's been on TV. Not as a one off "man on the street" interview. Not on public access. Not in some University production. He's been on Fox News's show Red Eye W/Greg Gutfeld. Not just once, multiple times. As such, he is being beamed into the homes of many people. He was given his own music segment. His bread and butter is his website. While much of it is humorous record reviews, he also acts as a de facto historian of the 1980's/1990's underground music scene (amongst others). He interviews artists important to the scene, that while notable enough for a wikipedia page, aren't exactly burning up the pages of Rolling Stone. As such, he too is notable. I hope that we can look past my relative inexperience on the site and discussions of the past, unreformed page and view this as the notable person it is. Thank you. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC) — Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See the user's userpage. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "He's had a biographical blurb in a published book." The "[WP]" at the end of the blurb means it was taken directly from Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR about this. Unfortunately, none of the other things you listed are what Wikipedia is looking for to see if the subject of an article is notable per the Wikipedia notability guideline. What I look for to see if something or a person is notable are reliable sources "about" the subject itself in detail. For people I also check to see if any of the points listed on WP:PEOPLE are met and that there are reliable secondary sources that back this up. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate the critique. However, I feel the fact a published book needed wikipedia to reference the man shows the need for the article, and his notablitity, even if said citation is circular. As for notability, I would note that the notability guidelines aren't law. If the consensus is that a man who has made frequent contributions to a music scene, been published in print multiple times, and had multiple established appearances on a show on a major cable network as a "music contributor" is that he's "not notable", I would state that the notability guidelines are broken. I understand the want against self promotion and the ascension of the trivial for personal gain, this is not a case of that. This is the creation of a reliable source of information about a notable man. As the internet grows and grows and the older established modes of information contract, more and more articles will be like this, therefore it is Wikipedia's standards that need to adjust, rather than deleting this article. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had the notability stuff been understood and followed from the beginning then there would be no Mark Prindle article on Wikipedia and the odds are he would not have shown up in that book. :-) I believe the book was constructed from things like Category:American music critics and it's parent categories.

If Prindle is all the things you say he is then all you need to do is to prove it. That's done by finding independent reliable sources that state the things you have said about Prindle. I'll write more about your notability suggestions but not on this AfD as it should be focused on Mark Prindle. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't really understand all the hoops I have to jump through here. I don't understand this process, I don't understand why I'm being pressed so hard for everything. I feel like I'm up against a bunch of lawyers that reference laws that aren't actually laws but might as well be, and act like bureaucrats while denying this is a bureaucracy. It would appear that an oft-published, tv guest commentator with a website filled with a lot of interviews with notable people would himself be notable, but I don't know squat. I thought notability wasn't a law, but a trend. So why am I constantly pressed like stare decisis is in place? You guys can have this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Mark Prindle has had several notable outlets, and in addition to the published materials has been discussed on and appeared on TV. I don't see any part of WP:Notability that says sources must be in print form for the subject to count as notable. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As has been mentioned, Mark Prindle has had multiple television appearances, articles published in notable magazines, quoted in print, and has conducted interviews with many notable musicians. This is the second or third time people have tried to get a Mark Prindle article deleted and it's just absolutely ridiculous to keep on doing so. Munich hilton (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of evidence for WP:N. Only one reference in the article itself covers the subject of the AfD (Mark Prindle). It is an interview on a Latvian web site. As I don't know the language I have no way of evaluating this site's nor the interviewer's reputation for fact checking. Four WP:PEACOCK words in the lead paragraph is not reassuring. I then checked my local library's research database and got zero hits. Google Scholar, Books, and News (using the links at the top of this AFD) only dig up trivial references. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial is subjective. Anyways, if it is an interview you need, I can gladly get one from him, I was talking with him through facebook, and he gave me a bunch of reference to things he was in. 24.125.10.58 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that trivial is subjective. When I use the word it means the subject was mention in a single sentence (sometimes two) and then dropped. For example, many band articles may mention they were reviewed by Prindle. Those are trivial mentions.

Interviews are tricky in my mind as many of them are a glowing lead to hook the reader and then it's one sentence questions with the interview subject providing most of the content. Thus the word count is low when looking for the significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 11#Interviews and Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 11#Interviews 2. I found those using this search. You may want to dig through the results.

Please keep in mind that even if the Prindle article is deleted that it will be instantly restored should someone come up with the solid evidence of notability that Wikipedia looks for. Thus while you may feel the AfD clock is ticking it's also not the end of the universe (or Mark Prindle) should the article get deleted. The reason I bring this up is that it takes a while to assimilate all those guidelines, policies, how they fit together, and how people are interpreting them. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solid evidence suggests notability is law, which it isn't. It's culled from trends of Wikipedia, correct? I feel that while Mark Prindle does not meet the WP:N perfectly, he fits the spirit of it. Furthermore, he is part of the upcoming evolution of culture away from the dying MSM sources Wikipedia currently requires notability. Trends change, and this is a case where I feel the trend should change. If an oft-cited/quoted writer who regularly appears on a cable news channel in a creative capacity isn't notable, then notability of the problem. If people can turn on their TV set, look the man up, and come up blank on this site because of a static, legalistic approach, then the static legalistic approach is the problem, not the man's notability. 24.125.10.58 (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When going to sleep last night I was thinking about Prindle and realized that FUTON bias applies. I, and I suspect many of the people here, are doing Internet research to see if a subject is notable. The point is, we can't cover everything and so it would be worthwhile to ask Mark Prindle if he's been featured in any industry specific publications, books, etc.

24.125.10.58, you brought up some good points but my reply does not seem directly relevant to this AFD. What that in mind I started User talk:Marc Kupper/Notability FAQ#Mark_Prindle (2nd nomination). --Marc Kupper|talk 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the man himself: I've appeared on Fox News' "Red Eye" as a music commentator ten times (to date). I've had articles published in Spin and Maxim UK. I or my web site have been quoted in the following books: Lost In The Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide To The Music You Missed -- Kim Coope Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and The Fall -- Simon Ford Enter Naomi: SST, L.A. and All That... -- Joe Carducc Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story Of The Ramones -- Everett True The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists -- Joel McIver Heavy Metal Music In Britain -- Gerd Bayer Studies In Language And Cognition -- Jordan Zlatev Criticises: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases -- Philip M. Parker Perfect Sound Forever: The Story of Pavement -- Rob Jovanovic Neither Here Nor There -- The Melvins. And my web site has been quoted in the liner notes of these CDs: - The Fall Box Set 1976-200 - Zip Code Rapists Sing And Play "The Three Doctors" 24.125.10.58 (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on a radio or TV show and getting articles published does not count. Notability on Wikipedia is not about what the subject does. It's about the subject, Mark Prindle in this case, receiving significant attention or coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If Prindle reviews someone and then they link or cite back him then that does not count as it's not independent of the subject. One thing you might try is if a book has a section about a band and if they include a Prindle quote as part of the band article then that could be evidence he's being cited. It's a tougher way to do it but it can work as it'll be evidence of WP:AUTHOR point 1. The rub is that the band review needs to be found in a reliable source. It'll be tough, but possible, to get a keep consensus that way given that he seems to have no general WP:N coverage. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD because it does not appear in the AfD log for 25 August 2009. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Also note that while technically not a {{spa}}, Munich hilton's edits indicate an unusual interest in this topic and may evidence a COI. ^Bongo_matic 01:27, 26 September 2009 (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.