I do not dispute the consensus in the discussion that Johnny Prill was not notable. However, I would like the page's history restored under a redirect to
National Grandparents Day, where Johnny Prill and his song are mentioned. Johnny Prill is a plausible search term, and National Grandparents Day is the logical redirect target.
It is appropriate, then, that the official flower of Grandparents Day is the forget-me-not. “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” written by Johnny Prill, was named the official song of the holiday in 2004.
Johnny Prill's CD "A Song For Grandma And Grandpa," contains the official song of National Grandparents Day. This enhanced CD allows you to print the sheet music for “A Song For Grandma And Grandpa” right from your computer. It also contains a music video of the song.
The National Grandparents Day Council is a non-profit corporation, established by descendants of Marian H. McQuade, Founder of National Grandparents Day.
Since 2004, there has been an official Grandparents Day song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa", by Johnny Prill, a singer-songwriter in the folk-polka traditions and a lifelong volunteer performer at nursing homes.
For example, the first Sunday after Labor Day is designated "Grandparents Day" in the United States. The official "Grandparents Day" has an official song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa," and an official flower, the forget-me-not.
These sources present a clear link between Johnny Prill and National Grandparents Day.
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
The deleted page can be viewed at
http://web.archive.org/web/20150120034031/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Prill. Although the article contains references to Prill's own website, many references are reliable sources. Much of the material in the deleted article can be used as the basis of a new article if new sources surface in the future.
Cunard (
talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse as closer and per the very first phrase of this DRV nom. In addition, Cunard would do well having a look at the usual formatting standards for AfD and DRV and reduce the walls of text they are producing. --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see why Cunard should be prevented from creating a redirect. That's an editorial decision, not an administrative one, so I don't see why it's necessary to review it in any detail here. Whether to restore the history is what should interest us.
If any content from the deleted article is going to be used, then we do have to preserve attribution and restoring the history is the simplest way. If not then restoring the history is completely optional. Cunard's given us his reasons in favour of a restore but I don't yet understand Randykitty's reasons for refusing, so could you clarify please Randykitty?—
S MarshallT/
C 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
@
S Marshall:I have no objection to creating a redirect de novo. However, I don't see any valid reason to restore the article history. Consensus was that Prill is not notable (as conceded even by the nom). If we follow Cunard's logic, no article would ever again be deleted (except copyvios), we would just create redirects and preserve the article history "in case the subject becomes notable in the future" or we want to merge something. If in future any evidence would turn up that Prill has become notable, the article can be undeleted if starting from scratch is not easier. --
Randykitty (
talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
OK, that makes sense to me. "In case the subject becomes notable in the future" doesn't really work for me either. So really at this DRV we're choosing between Cunard's "to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject" and Randykitty's "I don't see any valid reason to restore". From my perspective, neither exactly seems like a pressing, urgent issue and a compromise seems advisable. In view of the opinions expressed below, I'll go with userfy to Cunard, so that if any salvageable content is merged then Cunard can comply with
WP:CWW by (for example) putting a list of contributors onto the talk page of the target article without needing permission from any administrative gatekeeper, but Randykitty can remain assured that the deleted article can't possibly be restored to mainspace unless there's a new consensus.—
S MarshallT/
C 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Cunard argued for redirection in the afd - in his typical multipage, filibustering, repetitive way that makes me want to ignore him even when he's right - and consensus was against. He's raised no new arguments here.
On the merits, Prill's entire vanity section in the proposed redirect target should be removed as grossly undue weight, but I know better to get involved in that. —
Cryptic 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse much of the arguments for keeping content hidden but blanked in some way (a redirect in this case) and reasoning presented such here such as ease of access to non-admins, are similar in effect to
pure wiki deletion which the community has rejected multiple times in the past. It would take a really exceptional case before deciding to ignore that consensus. I should also be noted our license doesn't require us to have redirects if any of the deleted content is used in the destination article for two reasons - (1) It's a copyright issue, if the reused content doesn't meet the threshold of originality no copyright concern arises and (2) the license requirement is attribution, there multiple ways to meet the attribution requirement and a redirect is actually pretty weak in that regard. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk) 07:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse - As an editor involved in the discussion, who was asked for an opinion on creating a redirect with the history preserved, allow me to express it: I believe if a deletion discussion closes as delete the page should be deleted, not redirected; however, I have no pressing issue with a simple redirect. After all, we have a section of an article to redirect it to. I do not believe the article history should be restored. The consensus in the discussion was that Prill is not notable, his National Grandparents Day contribution is from 2004. I do not believe that Prill is likely to experience a sudden rise in notability to the point that he would be eligible for a stand alone article. Aside from the notability concerns, the nomination raised concerns about promotion in the article. Looking at the page logs
[1] it is apparent that this concern is not without basis. In fact, I would suggest that there is enough justification there to apply either creation protection or, if a redirect is created, full protection. The
discussion on keeping histories hidden under redirects concluded that: where there are concerns about an article that went beyond notability, histories should not necessarily be preserved. I have concerns with the coverage afforded to Prill in
National Grandparents Day, it's bordering on
WP:UNDUE. I believe these concerns mirror the number of times this page has been deleted, or subject of a deletion discussion. It is for these reasons, and his rather historic claim of notability, that I believe there is no editorial merit in keeping the page history underneath a redirect.
Bellerophontalk to me 10:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I was the afd nominator. It was major
Vanispamcruftisement that should have no place in Wikipedia, not even in a history. I am also of the opinion the overly self serving promotional section in National Grandparents Day also needs to go. It gives extremely undue weight to what may be an official song of a small self created corporation that has not been deemed significant enough themselves for anyone to give their own separate mention of that promotional organization in that page. A minor part of a minor part of the day. This info has been removed by multiple different editors but keeps reappearing, bought back by SPAs dedicated to promoting Prill. Since I think that entire section should go there is no longer any need for a redirect.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse, do not restore history- Consensus at the AfD was clear and, given Duffbeerforme and Bellerophon's strong arguments that covering this person elsewhere would be too promotional and
undue weight, I think retaining the history would be a net negative. And I second Cryptic and Randykitty's comments regarding repetitive walls of text.
ReykYO! 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Unless needed for target article's attribution, this has no merit.
Tarc (
talk) 13:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Bellerophon has argued well that a selective merge of the deleted draft would be undue weight and too promotional. I agree with S Marshall and Tarc that since there will be no merge, it is optional to restore the history. I withdraw this deletion review.
Cunard (
talk) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I do not dispute the consensus in the discussion that Johnny Prill was not notable. However, I would like the page's history restored under a redirect to
National Grandparents Day, where Johnny Prill and his song are mentioned. Johnny Prill is a plausible search term, and National Grandparents Day is the logical redirect target.
It is appropriate, then, that the official flower of Grandparents Day is the forget-me-not. “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” written by Johnny Prill, was named the official song of the holiday in 2004.
Johnny Prill's CD "A Song For Grandma And Grandpa," contains the official song of National Grandparents Day. This enhanced CD allows you to print the sheet music for “A Song For Grandma And Grandpa” right from your computer. It also contains a music video of the song.
The National Grandparents Day Council is a non-profit corporation, established by descendants of Marian H. McQuade, Founder of National Grandparents Day.
Since 2004, there has been an official Grandparents Day song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa", by Johnny Prill, a singer-songwriter in the folk-polka traditions and a lifelong volunteer performer at nursing homes.
For example, the first Sunday after Labor Day is designated "Grandparents Day" in the United States. The official "Grandparents Day" has an official song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa," and an official flower, the forget-me-not.
These sources present a clear link between Johnny Prill and National Grandparents Day.
The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.
A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.
Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.
In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.
The deleted page can be viewed at
http://web.archive.org/web/20150120034031/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Prill. Although the article contains references to Prill's own website, many references are reliable sources. Much of the material in the deleted article can be used as the basis of a new article if new sources surface in the future.
Cunard (
talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse as closer and per the very first phrase of this DRV nom. In addition, Cunard would do well having a look at the usual formatting standards for AfD and DRV and reduce the walls of text they are producing. --
Randykitty (
talk) 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see why Cunard should be prevented from creating a redirect. That's an editorial decision, not an administrative one, so I don't see why it's necessary to review it in any detail here. Whether to restore the history is what should interest us.
If any content from the deleted article is going to be used, then we do have to preserve attribution and restoring the history is the simplest way. If not then restoring the history is completely optional. Cunard's given us his reasons in favour of a restore but I don't yet understand Randykitty's reasons for refusing, so could you clarify please Randykitty?—
S MarshallT/
C 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
@
S Marshall:I have no objection to creating a redirect de novo. However, I don't see any valid reason to restore the article history. Consensus was that Prill is not notable (as conceded even by the nom). If we follow Cunard's logic, no article would ever again be deleted (except copyvios), we would just create redirects and preserve the article history "in case the subject becomes notable in the future" or we want to merge something. If in future any evidence would turn up that Prill has become notable, the article can be undeleted if starting from scratch is not easier. --
Randykitty (
talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
OK, that makes sense to me. "In case the subject becomes notable in the future" doesn't really work for me either. So really at this DRV we're choosing between Cunard's "to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject" and Randykitty's "I don't see any valid reason to restore". From my perspective, neither exactly seems like a pressing, urgent issue and a compromise seems advisable. In view of the opinions expressed below, I'll go with userfy to Cunard, so that if any salvageable content is merged then Cunard can comply with
WP:CWW by (for example) putting a list of contributors onto the talk page of the target article without needing permission from any administrative gatekeeper, but Randykitty can remain assured that the deleted article can't possibly be restored to mainspace unless there's a new consensus.—
S MarshallT/
C 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Cunard argued for redirection in the afd - in his typical multipage, filibustering, repetitive way that makes me want to ignore him even when he's right - and consensus was against. He's raised no new arguments here.
On the merits, Prill's entire vanity section in the proposed redirect target should be removed as grossly undue weight, but I know better to get involved in that. —
Cryptic 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse much of the arguments for keeping content hidden but blanked in some way (a redirect in this case) and reasoning presented such here such as ease of access to non-admins, are similar in effect to
pure wiki deletion which the community has rejected multiple times in the past. It would take a really exceptional case before deciding to ignore that consensus. I should also be noted our license doesn't require us to have redirects if any of the deleted content is used in the destination article for two reasons - (1) It's a copyright issue, if the reused content doesn't meet the threshold of originality no copyright concern arises and (2) the license requirement is attribution, there multiple ways to meet the attribution requirement and a redirect is actually pretty weak in that regard. --
86.2.216.5 (
talk) 07:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse - As an editor involved in the discussion, who was asked for an opinion on creating a redirect with the history preserved, allow me to express it: I believe if a deletion discussion closes as delete the page should be deleted, not redirected; however, I have no pressing issue with a simple redirect. After all, we have a section of an article to redirect it to. I do not believe the article history should be restored. The consensus in the discussion was that Prill is not notable, his National Grandparents Day contribution is from 2004. I do not believe that Prill is likely to experience a sudden rise in notability to the point that he would be eligible for a stand alone article. Aside from the notability concerns, the nomination raised concerns about promotion in the article. Looking at the page logs
[1] it is apparent that this concern is not without basis. In fact, I would suggest that there is enough justification there to apply either creation protection or, if a redirect is created, full protection. The
discussion on keeping histories hidden under redirects concluded that: where there are concerns about an article that went beyond notability, histories should not necessarily be preserved. I have concerns with the coverage afforded to Prill in
National Grandparents Day, it's bordering on
WP:UNDUE. I believe these concerns mirror the number of times this page has been deleted, or subject of a deletion discussion. It is for these reasons, and his rather historic claim of notability, that I believe there is no editorial merit in keeping the page history underneath a redirect.
Bellerophontalk to me 10:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. I was the afd nominator. It was major
Vanispamcruftisement that should have no place in Wikipedia, not even in a history. I am also of the opinion the overly self serving promotional section in National Grandparents Day also needs to go. It gives extremely undue weight to what may be an official song of a small self created corporation that has not been deemed significant enough themselves for anyone to give their own separate mention of that promotional organization in that page. A minor part of a minor part of the day. This info has been removed by multiple different editors but keeps reappearing, bought back by SPAs dedicated to promoting Prill. Since I think that entire section should go there is no longer any need for a redirect.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse, do not restore history- Consensus at the AfD was clear and, given Duffbeerforme and Bellerophon's strong arguments that covering this person elsewhere would be too promotional and
undue weight, I think retaining the history would be a net negative. And I second Cryptic and Randykitty's comments regarding repetitive walls of text.
ReykYO! 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Unless needed for target article's attribution, this has no merit.
Tarc (
talk) 13:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Bellerophon has argued well that a selective merge of the deleted draft would be undue weight and too promotional. I agree with S Marshall and Tarc that since there will be no merge, it is optional to restore the history. I withdraw this deletion review.
Cunard (
talk) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.