Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Gilley

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gilley[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable songwriter Andre🚐 02:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure how a biography written decades after his death, public radio coverage from decades after his death, and many of the other sources would not be considered independent. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to read the article. The main source is a TV feature based upon a self-published book. No contemporary sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would a radio piece decades after his death be connected to him, he isn't capable of speaking as he's been gone for many years/dead people don't give radio interviews. I agree with the assessment. Oaktree b (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have multiple independent sources talking about Gilley's life and career starting with Chet Flippo's 1981 biography about Hank Williams. In 2012, local Kentucky historian W. Lynn Nickell published a book about Gilley, gaining notice in Kentucky media sources. Just recently, American Songwriter covered Gilley's authorship question (see "Behind The Song Lyrics: 'I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry,' Hank Williams".) The AfD makes no sense. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> In 2012, local Kentucky historian W. Lynn Nickell published a book about Gilley,

Then why haven't you used it as a source? You have two sources: Flippo's unsourced comments, which have been strongly criticized, and a TV show based upon Nickell's promotional efforts for his self-published book. Every other source parrots and/or promotes the TV show. Not one of the other sources are independent, and most are nothing but churnalism, including the link you provided. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These points you are making are not related to whether Gilley is notable or not. They are only about whether the claim is believable. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:Notability. You need reliable independent sources to establish notability. None of your sources qualify. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he was famous during his time, and his memory remains to this day. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment: Is W. Lynn Nickell the same person as or otherwise affiliated with Paul Gilley? If not, then he is independent of Gilley by definition. Per WP:USINGSPS, "self-published" does not mean "independent"; this whole debate would only be relevant if this were an article about W. Lynn Nickell, which it is not.
As for the reliability of the source, WP:USINGSPS also goes on to say that self-published sources are acceptable "if the author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Nickell's position as county historian establishes himself as an expert and one likely to do due diligence in terms of research and fact-checking, or at the very least be presumed to do without evidence to the contrary. As for the latter point, it appears that it has (there are also several news articles in which he is cited/quoted in his capacity as historian). Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So I suppose in this case the author is the "reliable third-party publisher"? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what your link is trying to prove. No one is disputing that his books are self-published. The sources I presented, however, are not those books. The first source is scholarly research by Robert M. Rennick at Morehead State University that cites Nickell as a subject-matter expert; the second is a book by William E. Ellis from the University Press of Kentucky that does the same. If someone's work as a historian has been deemed reliable not only by major music publications but by multiple major universities, I am inclined to agree with the publications and universities, as is Wikipedia policy. (The exception would be if Gilley were alive, in which case the stricter WP:BLP guidelines would kick in; however, he has not been alive for some time.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know how Nickell qualifies as an expert on the subject matter at hand; the TV show he uses to promote his book and the idea that Gilley was a secret writer of Hank Williams hits (Nickell even includes Williams' "Your Cheatin' Heart" on the cover, a claim the article doesn't take up for some reason) is full of easily-proved errors about Gilley and withholds information by using cropped newspaper articles. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Impugning respected local historian Nickell isn't going to remove him as a usable source helping to show Gilley's notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Nickell was a high school basketball coach. I'm sure he was a very nice man, but he was an amateur historian. The discussion is moot because his book is not used as a source for the article. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no extraordinary claims regarding whether Gilley is notable, whether Wikipedia should delete his biography. He's been discussed by a bunch of sources. The Nickell book simply needs to exist for it to have some bearing on Gilley's notability. None of the media have said that Nickell's scholarship is flawed. He's considered an expert on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Gilley secretly wrote hit songs for Williams and other singers in the face of the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses to the contrary is certainly an extraordinary claim, and one that is not generally accepted by musuc scholars. And no one has read Nickell's book, including yourself. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Music, Basketball, and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable songwriter-Thank You-RFD (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gilley's entire claim to notability is based on his own statements. While a couple sources have repeated his claims, they are not apparently supported by any evidence beyond Gilley's own statements. All documentary evidence that may have supported the claims were destroyed. This does not mean that Gilley was necessarily wrong, but his claims in several instances are refuted by other witnesses describing how songs Gilley claims he wrote were actually written by others. Gilley as an original source is unreliable, which means that any claims he made that are the basis of these other books is similarly unreliable. If the article is to remain, it should be cast as a description of unverified and unverifiable claims by Gilley, since no other sources exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomagosh (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if someone self-published a book, and that book is the source for our article, and the author of that book has a reputation or sales riding on the book, then one can argue that the sources are indeed dependent on the subject (or the subject's reputation), whether the subject is alive or dead. Raise your hand if you bought the book after reading this article--no hands? But in principle it's possible.
Anyway, for that argument to be a proper argument for deletion, it would have to be argued that the book itself is not acceptable as a reliable secondary source (because it's still secondary, despite any COI), and I have not seen that argument here. Tom Reedy takes a stab at that, with the comment on cropped newspaper articles, and there are interesting comments on the talk page, but that quickly gets bogged down in the particulars of some numbering issue of a student publication. That that matter is neither here nor there seems, from my perspective, to be handled deftly by Binksternet, whose list of sources discussing the matter is not challenged by any one else (and the American Songwriter article is not just based on Gilley). Bomagosh makes a valid point regarding reliability--but I don't see proof there of unreliability, or a specific argument.
I'm going with keep--even without Gilley, there's sourcing here. Oh, I got pinged (thank you Tom) because I reverted someone years ago who removed a bunch of material: that was me reverting a disruptive editor; I certainly didn't have much of an opinion on article content. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is not used as a source for the article. And like any fringe claim, explaining the evidence against it takes much more time than it takes to make the claim. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - A source does not need to be in the article to add to notability, it simply needs to exist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, saying "this self-published book is nothing" is just not enough, but I also don't believe you are correct. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it is nothing; I'm saying it doesn't comply with WP:RS. Which, as I noted, is moot, because it is not used as a source. The only real sources are Flippo, the television show, and some student publications. Every other source merely reports what those say. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gilley is also mentioned in a Billboard article form 1955 about signing artists [1]. It's trivial but shows sustained coverage. Even when he was alive he was talked about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the question is the source of the information. If all the articles say no more than "Gilley says he wrote these songs," but there's no evidence supporting his claim, and he seems to have a track record of claiming credit for songs for which there's reliable evidence that he did not write them, there is a big problem of reliability. If the sources are merely repeating his own claims, and the article remains on WP, it needs to be edited to not claim anything beyond what the sources support -- that Gilley CLAIMED to have written the songs. That's not nothing, but it's not much. Gilley's claims might be better reflected as a note in the questionable song descriptions, to better reflect Gilley's notability. Bomagosh (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reliable sources questioning Paul Gilley's "track record" or reliability. On the contrary, the people who knew him were all in agreement that he was very reliable, upright and honest. If you want your characterization to stick, you will need to find supporting sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed his point. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bomagosh's point is that a good deal of the sources are not independent, but instead circular reporting; i.e. they originate from one source. Wikipedia requires independent sources, not sources that merely repeat one source. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears notable. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While most of the individual sources are themselves minimal, the amount of them clearly shows the impact of this person's life in a popular music genre. Wikipedia needs more articles like this, not less - especially about people whose life and accomplishments pre-date the internet. In today's media environment this man would be as documented as Max Martin, at least for the few years he was active. Because of the ephemeral nature of sources, they tend to become more obscure, more disorganized, and harder to find the further we get in the future; the energy taken to write an article for this man, now, does more for future historians than adding more irrelevant sentences about easy to document modern things. Wikipedia has essays on recentism that discuss taking a 10 year POV and wondering if it is worth writing. In this case, we are already looking backwards 65 years, and very much so, this was worth writing and worth keeping. To the authors: a sincere thank you for the efforts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sources based on adding a new song to the article, the first is an academic DB "Discography of American Historical Recordings" and the second a book "The Decca labels: a discography". I also illustrated the songs section with an image from Commons. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one yet has shown how this page complies with WP:BIO. Instead all we have here is a list of people who have taken the article on its face as being true, despite the dearth of reliable sources. WP editors seem to have forgotten that the encyclopedia requires that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and instead have just settled for a good story. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to worry about BIO because the list of sources I added to the talk page shows that the Gilley songwriting claim has been widely represented in reliable sources, including two fine works by Bill Koon, published in respected university imprints, a Hank Williams biography from Oxford University, and a Danish book about country music. The issue is international by now. BIO is satisfied. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you listed merely mention the claim in passing, not at all the way Wikipedia requires in the policy Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters. Three of the sources are by Koon who reprints what he said in the orginal book review of Flippo's book. And international? That's a big claim foer something that's never been covered by a major newspaper or media outlet, almost as big a claim as Gilley writing all those hit songs. 02:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the claim in passing validates the claim just enough that Wikipedia becomes interested. The only thing we need to keep Gilley's claim in an article is that multiple high-quality sources mention it. We have that! Number one is Koon, Bill (2001). Hank Williams, So Lonesome. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 9781578062836. Number two is The Hank Williams Reader (2014). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199349890, edited by Patrick Huber, Steve Goodson and David Anderson. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got a feeling this is gonna have to be straightened out on the WP:RS noticeboard before this is all over with. Mentioning that somebody said something without discussing it isn't an independent source. Most of the books you have listed are reliable sources for the life of Hank Williams, but not for the songwriting career of Paul Gilley. Simply being mentioned in passing in a source that is deemed reliable is not sufficient enough to satisfy notability thresholds. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page complies with WP:BIO because it passes GNG, which is the very first part. No one here has "taken the article on its face as being true"; we've assessed the reliability of the sources in question. At this point this is starting to border on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, if not there already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> At this point this is starting to border on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH,

I have to admit that it is my own research that has led me to think that Gilley is a fraud, but that isn't why I nominated the article for deletion. As I stated, there isn't enough independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The main source, a YouTube video taken from a human interest feature show (has anybody here read WP:NOYT?), has many errors of fact passed off as truth that I don't see how it could be considered reliable. I've pretty much accepted that the article will be kept, but I certainly intend to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policies. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2022 (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.