Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Prindle

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 despite the vast flood of anonymous users arguing to keep the article (this AFD was linked to from a 4chan post). --Coredesat 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prindle

edit
Mark Prindle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a regretful AfD, as I do like the work of the person in question. However, I don't think that he really passes WP:N right now. I'll be quite willing to change my mind if proper sources are provided, but right now I don't see sources demonstrating that he is truly notable. If they existed, they'd have been found by now. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable enough. All the external links supplied are his own site and his MySpace page? (which BTW is not acceptable). Google does not show much independent confirmation. The first page is mostly WP and his own site. -- Alexf42 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, the subject of this article is well-known on the Internet as a music critic, I believe, and has had his site online since 1996. He was also in a band for a long time and interviews various punk rock musicians. But that doesn't mean he's notable enough for Wikipedia when there are probably no reliable sources about him. Weird, I sort of dogmatically assumed that he was notable until it occurred to me that there's a good chance he's not genuinely notable through the lack of third-party sources specifically addressing Prindle.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. In my case, I am not into the music scene and can honestly say I never heard of the guy before. Makes it easier to come with a fresh perspective and be more objective in searching for clues about notability. So far, my Delete recommendation stands, until proven otherwise. -- Alexf42 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of pages link to Mark Prindle, but that's only because some articles are using his reviews in the infobox. I'm curious as to whether he should be considered a professional music critic or not given the informal writing he uses in the reviews. If he's not professional, then maybe articles shouldn't be using him at all as a source.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please explain how it makes him notable if there are no reliable sources addressing the person in question? He does seem to be well-known in internet music criticism, but I feel he falls short of WP:BIO at the moment. He's a freelance music journalist, but Tim Jonze's article was deleted for the same reasons, I believe.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Mark Prindle is an influence on other internet music writers. Just look at the links section on his website for a PLETHORA of sites inspired by his. I might not know much about Mozart, but not knowing his work doesn't mean I think his wikipedia entry should be deleted. Mark Prindle is the Lester Bangs of our day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.7.16 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prindle's website is itself a small version of Wikipedia. There are innumerable historical facts regarding underground rock spanning the last several decades to be found in his interviews. Just because he doesn't write for some large, corporate magazine like the Rolling Stone should not belittle his contribution to music journalism. I find the deletion of someone's entry into a public encyclopedia strange, as his popularity has as much to do with the mutability of the modern media paradigm as does Wikipedia's. Half of the problem with finding "significant coverage from reliable sources" is the fact that he is NOT part of the machine you are searching for "significant coverage from reliable sources" in. If this is a popularity contest, then please delete away... maybe there are a few hundred (thousand?) entries for bands that don't meet the same criteria and should be nixed. I repeat, don't delete!

Chowderdick (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how two paragraphs on an independent media figure, regardless of how small and cultish his following may be, are any more offensive and less important than the endless lists of useless pop culture trivia which are unavoidable on this site. How, for example, are the endless summaries of various television episodes any more important than a brief bio on a visible internet figure, with a popular website still in use? "I've never heard of him" is not a good reason for deletion - not many people have heard of Russian aircraft designer Andrei Nikolayevich Tupelov either, but that's no reason to argue that his article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.142.97 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. As I just added to his page: Mark's site is quoted or referenced in the following books: - "Neither Here Nor There" by the Melvins


- "Enter Naomi" by Joe Carducci


- "Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story of the Ramones" by Everett True


- "Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and the Fall" by Simon Ford

He has been published in over a dozen print zines, as well as:


- the book "Lost in the Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide to the Music You Missed"


- Maxim UK

He appears in the Pavement DVD "Slow Century" and is plagiarized on the back cover of "Perfect Sound Forever: The Story Of Pavement" by Rob Jovanovic.

Los Llamarada reference his site in their Dusted interview at http://www.dustedmagazine.com/features/704

His site is one of the longest-running review sites on the Internet, and he averages 2500-3000 individual visitors (25,000-30,000 clickthroughs) per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.0.73 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


KEEP. Mark Prindle is hilarious and a great reviewer. He's been reviewing for god knows how long and there's tons of articles that could be removed before this one. And they guy above me is absoulutely correct in saying that "I've never heard of him" is a moronic and unjustified reason for deletion. If wikipedia worked like that, there'd probably only be around 500 articles instead of over a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munich hilton (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Prindle. He rules! His site is an all time classic.

KEEP, without a doubt. The man's been maintaining his obsessively prolific page since 1996 and certainly deserves some credit. In addition to writing thousands of reviews, he's also interviewed many notable artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.225.122 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Prindle. His longetivity and his pioneering of the form, in addition to the vast number of interviews, make him notable. Perhaps, only notable in terms of the internet and music history, but that's still notable than the Duke of Bulgaria in the early 1840's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.190 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If the artists who grant him interviews are notable enough for Wikipedia pages, why shouldn't he be notable enough? That seems like a weird double-standard. I see no reason to delete his entry.

KEEP the man! He is important enough to link to this discussion, I think that importantness should be appreciated. Uzisuicide (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article! While Prindle may not be extremely well known, his writing is distinct and very influental, as can be proven by the number of copycat sites out there on the internet. His reputation is further cemented by the various published authors who have cited him in their writings. His writings and interviews remain relevant today, and there's no good reason not for this article to exist, regardless of how "obscure" the uninformed have decided he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.121.78 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Are you kidding? For many, Mark Prindle is THE rock music critic of our age (90's-00's). He's regularly acknowledged (revered, openly emulated, etc.) by rock critics web-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.105.18 (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Prindle is as notable as any pop music critic writing today, given the sheer scope of his website: he has reviewed entire catalogues of hundreds of artists, filling each review with insight and humor. As one of five people to sit through everything that Frank Zappa released, he deserves notice. As the man who dared to WRITE about everything Frank Zappa released, he deserves exaltation, or at least our deepest sympathy. His ouvre can be enjoyed as comedy, as one of the most extensive popular music resources online, or simply as an invaluable case study of obsessive-complulsive disorder. In any case, it's worth noting. If you're going to delete Wikipedia articles, at least start with the truly unremarkable ones, like South Dakota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.180.242 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT. I have used Mark Prindle's Wikipedia entry in the past, and found the experience to be both fun and enlightening. Why are you trying to deprive me of fun and enlightenment, only to gain a few credibility points as an encyclopedia which no one will grant you anyway due to your galling lack of completeness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.158.157 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As for internet music critics Prindle certainly is the most legendary one. As for third party sources, here's an interview with Prindle I made a couple of years ago for a Latvian web page: http://www.dialogi.lv/article.php?id=1583&t=0&rub=9. --Kazhe (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's almost like a cult hero as far as internet music critics go. He's interviewed many musicians from bands that at very least have a strong fan base and puts a new look to the same old boring internet review. Removing this would be criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.188.209 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Mark Prindle is an important and notable independent online critic (indeed, very likely the first major independent online critic ever). He has interviewed notable members of the music industry such as Richie Unterberger of All Music Guide and famous musicians such as Greg Puciato. He has also written for numerous publications. Removing this article would contradict the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to spread knowledge of noted events and people in our cultures.

KEEP IT! Mark Prindle.com has been and still is one of the most entertaining, comprehensive and, most of all, reliable musical resources on the internet. He always review records based on his point of view, but, since he's a music fan and a rabid collector he's developed a diverse taste, not only restricted to what might be his favorite genres (mainly Hardcore Punk, 70's Hard Rock and Amphetamine Reptile style Grunge), but to most Pop Rock based music, offering an insight that's way more reliable than say, Allmusic.com- KEEP IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.159.252 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. His site is obviously inspiration to countless other review sites that have since sprung up. Besides that his many interviews with many notable artists make his page just as important as many high profile magazines that contain similar content. The only difference is he doesn't get paid for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.100.9 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Prindle is a legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.33.211 (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Even if he is virtually unknown outside that niche, Prindle pioneered amateurish music critic sites (basically containing subjective, down to the bones reviews made by a handful of unpaid individuals) and is a cult legend among the community around them. Besides, you can't deny the sheer originality and enjoyability of his writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.150.62 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Prindle's database is extremely well known within the record reviewing community and outwith, as seen by the multiple works that quote him. Known and loved by artists and music fans alike, his site is read by many for HIS content as opposed to research on the artists he covers (although this is another excellent reason to visit his site). His position as a "cult figure" should guarantee his place on wiki. As quote above, his website is accessed thousands of times a day, and there is no reason why a person with a following such as this who offers such a good service should not exist on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Prindle is not only the best reviewer in the world but also a great great writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.233.2 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT! Becaue of his contributions, he's got a fanbase of readers that keeps growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.128.177.10 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT OBVIOUSLY!! Pooh....Prindle is the best rock reviewer on the net, and the pioneer of music reviews on the net which give a honest opinion about the music. No one has withstood the test of time as Prindle has, nor are anynone elses reviews half as interesting. A cult figure, he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.185.146 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Mark Prindle is indeed notable; perhaps not in the ever-expanding universe of popular culture, but to those of us in the music industry who enjoy the internet (and in fact have done so for the past decade), he is an indispensable figure. There is no reason to delete a short article about a man who has contributed so much to rock music journalism. --207.30.185.10 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THE PAGE. Mark Prindle is an invaluable resource for music fans in the internet age. Extremely notable in the underground rock world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.61.16 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mark Prindle's name brings up over 24,000 results on Google, many of which are links to webzines and not just his own page as someone above stated. Add these to the published mentions and citations, and I'd say he's "credible" enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Either that or the only people Wikipedia considers good enough to have an entry are those who are household names. Obscure doesn't mean bad. --Drifting182 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. His name keeps growing, both by internet and word of mouth. When I talk rock music with friends, I recommend and quote his reviews most. On the internet his site is the standard for independant record reviewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.120.41 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Prindle on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.140.56 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Prindle is cited in many books, and this alone makes him worthy of an article. He is also the most important, and possibly the first, independent reviewer online. Prindle's site offers comprehensive reviews, covering everything available on whomever he is reviewing. He has also interviewed dozens of notable hardcore and alternative artists, and these interviews should be considered. It is good to have information on him and his website on Wikipedia, even if he is not well-known amongst most people. I have yet to find a more objective or better source of music information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.41.82 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prindle isn't just some guy being funny, he knows music even better than any rolling stone, spin or whatever magazine is on the street. Give him a reading, he knows, and rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.154.187 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The demand for third-party sources seems rather antithetical to what Prindle's site is all about; he has created his own self-contained online universe over the past 10+ years, and the sheer number of hits -- and on-site (not to mention ilx-style bulletin board) discussion -- he continues to receive is testament to how loyal those who stumble upon it become and remain. Reading through his interviews with A-list punks and post-punks, it's amazing to see how many are intimately familiar with his site going into the interview. Not only do a number of these people WANT to be interviewed by Prindle because of their awareness of his intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of their output, there are even those (like Jello Biafra) who REFUSE to be interviewed due to their familiarity with Prindle's work. I cannot think of another personal site that has such a reputation (and almost entirely a lofty one) within the listener, critic, and musician communities... it's quite an achievement, and -- this is the key in this debate -- Prindle has done it WORKING ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN. He has never been making money off of this venture, but he's kept at it for years and a far-reaching, international fanbase has found -- and bookmarked -- HIM over the last decade. As someone above said, Prindle's site is in many ways a Wikipedia of music criticism, and as such it would be a rather cruel (and absurd) irony if the most popular interactive online encyclopedia were to give the boot to the most popular interactive online music criticism site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.80 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lack of third party sources, nothing that seems to seperate him from every other review. The tons of IP's in this AFD make me wonder what messageboard was spammed with requests to support keeping it. TJ Spyke 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Third party references have been added to the entry, so what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.233.250.6 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Prindle&oldid=1138056818"