Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Mateer

< 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 speedy delete. CSD G7, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Mateer

edit

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

John Thomas Mateer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refbombed article with patchy sourcing (at best), profiling YouTuber and stood up on mostly non-RS references, created by SPA. Take out social, passing mentions, usage of his Sandy coverage by MSM and links to his own platform and you fail WP:GNG with brio. NOTE now at John Mateer (filmmaker) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{hidden | headerstyle = background: #ccccff; font-size: 110%; | header = Really long rationale by the article creator | content =:Okay. If you have to say “take out this, this & this and it would be subject to deletion” … isn’t that you blatantly stating that it is not subject to deletion? Category for “YouTuber” was removed. The subject of the article is listed as a filmmaker. He has been featured in films as well as worked as the cinematographer on others. I referenced his film production company that he started to further explain.

I would’ve appreciated the ability to clean up the over-sourcing. Your initial statement points to a premature nomination for deletion.
Shortcuts


I went on to read WP:SPA and totally get what you are saying. I didn’t think about that and I will broaden my focus immediately. I didn’t realize how that could come across. Apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the SPA comment, I give you that. It was just how I wanted to go about my first article. I was going to make it, have it reviewed, learn more about the process and then go on to create more. I apologize if this seem like a SPA, but I had only begun editing the page on the 29th of September. I have a list of other topics I want to write about. I specifically write about the New York film scene because I live in New York myself and am aware of these people. John Mateer stood out for his bizarre story. There’s still so much more to include. I apologize for the heavy defense. I just have been working so hard on it, it took me by suripise. I requested a peer edit and now it’s getting trashed. I would’ve loved feedback. This is just disheartening.

I’ll give it my best though:

WP:BASIC & WP:NBASIC state the following: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.”


This is a list I could compile for you now to show you that the subject indeed meets the criteria, and that this nomination should be revoked in favor for an editing suggestion.

"The Fordham Ram" (USA), 18 January 2021, by: Jaclyn Weiner, "Updating Gay Hate Crime Legislation"

"MediaUpdate.co.za" (South Africa), 14 November 2012, "Superstorm New York: What Really Happened"

"PRNewswire" (USA), 12 November 2012, "National Geographic Channel To Air First In-Depth Cable Documentary On Wrath And Destruction Of Hurricane Sandy In Superstorm 2012"

"Philly Voice" (USA), 15 November 2019, by: Daniel Craig, "Man says he was beaten by PSU fraternity member because he's gay"

"Opposing Views" (USA), 8 March 2018, by: Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, "'Don't Let A Frat Guy Know That You're Gay': Teen Allegedly Beaten Up At Penn State"

"Onward State" (USA), 15 October 2015, by: Megan Fleming, "Penn State Altoona Student Charged Following Alleged Homophobic Assault"

"StateCollege.com" (USA), 15 October 2015, by: Zach Berger, "Penn State Student Charged in Alleged Anti-Gay Assault"

"The Underground" (USA), 12 October 2015, by: Adam Tidball, "Mateer's Assault and Homophobia at Penn State"

"Seventeen" (USA), 8 October 2015, by: Elizabeth Denton, "Gay Teen Brutally Attacked Outside a Penn State Frat House"

"Total Frat Move" (USA), 8 October 2015, by: Harrison Lee, "Viral Tweet Accuses PSU Fraternity Member Of Beating Guy Up For Being Gay, Police Find Suspect Isn't Actually In Fraternity"

"Logo TV" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Matthew Tharrett, "GAY TEEN VICIOUSLY BEATEN AT PENN STATE AFTER REVEALING HE IS GAY"

"Teen Vogue" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Emma Sarran Webster, "This Teen Was Beaten Outside a Penn State Frat House After Revealing That He's Gay"

"Gay Star News" (USA), 7 October 2015, "Gay college student visiting Penn State comes out outside fraternity house, gets beaten"

"COED" (USA), 7 October 2015, by: Alexa Lyons, "Teen Claims PSU Student Assaulted Him For Being Gay"

"Metro" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Matthew Lee, "Man claims he was gay bashed by Penn State frat guy"

"NY Daily News" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Melissa Chan, "Long Island teen claims Penn State fraternity member beat him for being gay: 'Don't let a frat guy know that you're gay'"

"Edge" (USA), 6 October 2015, "NY Teen Says Penn State Frat Member Beat Him Over Sexuality"

"Towleroad" (USA), 6 October 2015, by: Ande Towle, "Police Investigating Alleged Anti-Gay Assault of Man at Penn State University"

"Pink News" (UK), 6 October 2015, by: JOSEPH MCCORMICK, "Police investigate alleged assault on college teen by 'frat member'"

"Fox 5 New York" (USA), 5 October 2015, "Police investigate possible anti-gay beating"

"The Tab" (USA), 5 October 2015, "Gay man allegedly beaten in North Burrowes assault"

"Inside Edition" (USA), 4 October 2015, by: IE Staff, "Police Investigate After Teen Says He Was Assaulted at Penn State University For Being Gay"

"Channel Guide Magazine" (USA), 16 June 2013, by: Barb Oates, "Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of "Bouffants and Bingo""

"CBS 6" (USA), 2 November 2012, by: Sandi Cauley, "Trees fall in NY neighborhood as Sandy comes ashore"

"Forbes" (USA), 2 November 2012, by: Kashmir Hill, "Sandy Through The Eyes of YouTube and a Drone: Falling Trees, Fires and Flooding"

"CNET" (USA), 31 October 2012, by: Chris Matyszczyk, "Sandy video: Falling trees. Fire. 'Apocalypse'"

"Aristegui Noticias" (Mexico), 31 October 2012, "'Frankenstorm' se llevó hasta los árboles en EU"

"Pirman" (Spain), 31 October 2012, "Esto es el 'Apocalipsis'. Sandy videos: Caída de árboles. Fuego. Olas gigantes."

"Klix" (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 30 October 2012, "Pogledajte s kakvom lakocom uragan Sandy cupa drvece"

"BostInno" (USA), 30 October 2012, by: Sam Dwyer, "'Hurricane Sandy 3 Trees Fall and Fire' Becomes Next Double Rainbow Guy"

"Mashable" (USA), 30 October 2012, by: Stephanie Haberman, "'This Is the Apocalypse' Video Shows Sandy Destruction"

4theloveofallthings (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


PLEASE NOTE: You are linking to search results for “John Thomas Mateer”.. as clear in his page on IMDb, most of — if not ALL of his last titles are credited “John Mateer.”

It has his included his middle name in his IMDb, and the page John Mateer was already taken, so I went with middle name included. If you are looking for sources while searching for “John Thomas Mateer,” you are unlikely to find the same amount of information as you would if you typed in “John Mateer” followed by whatever you want to know.

Just wanted to share this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 14:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21845/1/Fuchs_Tanja.pdf (Pages 166-168) scholarly source titled “Violence against Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals - Social Media Activism in the Obama Era in the Light of Johan Galtung’s Violence Triangle”


https://www.google.com/search?q=john+mateer+penn+state+assault&client=safari&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ALiCzsb5iOjeSjEOZeNzO2qtLQgyNE8AJQ%3A1664980819402&ei=U5c9Y-32F8mhptQP0L2zsAc&oq=john+mateer+penn+state+assault&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwuAED-AEBMgUQIRigAcICCBAAGKIEGLADwgIEECMYJ8ICBRAhGKsCkAYESJohUPwFWI4fcAB4AMgBAJABAJgBlAGgAewQqgEFMTAuMTHiAwQgQRgBiAYB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp&safari_group=9#ip=1

Try that instead for the Penn State situation. That looks heavily sourced to me.

Included sources to articles by Teen Vogue, Philly Voice, NY Daily News, Inside Edition and others speaking about Mateer's viral assault.

https://www.seventeen.com/life/school/news/a34610/this-is-horrible-gay-teen-brutally-assaulted-outside-a-penn-state-frat-house/

https://www.insideedition.com/12240-police-investigate-after-teen-says-he-was-assaulted-at-penn-state-university-for-being-gay

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/gay-teen-assaulted-outside-frat-penn-state

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-claims-penn-state-frat-guy-attacked-gay-article-1.2386871


For the Hurricane Sandy Viral Video. The documentary I included in a source not only opens by calling MATEER’S video “world famous,” but he stars start to finish in the entire thing.

I included sources for the Hurricane Sandy event to televised interviews of Mateer with Katie Couric over the matter, I put a source from FORBES talking about MATEER’S footage.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22john+mateer%22+hurricane+sandy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&safari_group=9

Try this instead.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/11/02/sandy-through-the-eyes-of-youtube-and-a-drone-falling-trees-fires-and-flooding/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVQPqUbjkJo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWnBX_x2Md4 (this is the Weather Channels official YouTube channel)


https://www.fox5ny.com/news/police-investigate-possible-anti-gay-beating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused because with the exception of the scholarly source, which I will add, all of these were cited.

Forbes. Fox News. ABC. The Weather Channel. Teen Vogue. NY Daily News.

If these aren’t strong enough of sources, I am left very confused what the standard for a source is.

Perhaps tagging the article with a warning to clean up the sources and edit it better would’ve been suffice? I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that this article should be deleted. At the most, I’d say change the title to “John Mateer (filmmaker).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4theloveofallthings (talk • contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and now you've screwed up the entire AfD page. Sign your comments and don't go hacking at the main page please. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources are mostly unreliable and non-independent. Delete per WP:BIO1E. Haueirlan (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject does not land within the criteria of WP:BIO1E - as per the article where two events are heavily sourced with reliable and independent sources. Rough as the article may be, as per WP:INTROTODELETE, the article shouldn’t be nominated at all for deletion based on the need for cleanup. Subject meets all of the criteria for WP:GNG as well, which negates the listed nomination reason - even though the nominator stated in his nomination that the article almost doesn’t meet the WP:GNG criteria.. which means that it does and this whole nomination for deletion is a waste of time that could have been spent giving suggestions on cleaning up the article instead.. . and considering the standards set forth in WP:NOBITING, I feel like this was just an unnecessary and unwarranted insult on a newcomer rather than a genuine attempt at encouraging those new within the Wikipedia community to grow as editors.
    I have given my reasoning. My reasoning is backed by standards put in place by Wikipedia.
    • Keep
    4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - fixed spotty sources, removed information that lacked backing, and still what is left has sufficient citations that reference some of the strongest names in journalism (Forbes, ABC, The Inquirer, etc.) — I also included a PhD Dissertation in which the Penn State assault was analyzed.

I apologize for my mistake with the AfD page. I’m still learning. I was struggling to figure out how to sign and the bot was signing it for me. I figured that was okay.

4theloveofallthings (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - The nominator that put the article John Thomas Mateer up for deletion stated that if the article were missing certain things, that it would not meet WP:GNG, which initially sets strikingly clear understanding to how carefree this user is with posting AfD tags on new articles rather than attempting to provide constructive criticism. WP:NOBITING. But I thought I’d provide a list of all requirements set forth by WP:GNG that the nominator claims was almost not met by the article John Thomas Mateer — thus justifying tagging it for deletion discussion somehow.
  • 1. "Presumed" - the first guideline states that if there is significant coverage in reliable sources to the point it can be presumed NOT guaranteed that the subject warrants its own article — then it meets criteria #1 - Article References are not only sufficiently reliable (including articles dedicated entirely to the subject by the likes of Teen Vogue, Seventeen Magazine, PhillyVoice, The Weather Channel & CNN.. but valuable pieces of information can be found on the subject in other reliable sources included — from the likes of Forbes, ABC, National Geographic & BBC. Sources are varied. Some are news articles, magazine articles, direct video of the television broadcasts & documentaries Mateer was on, some info published by the subject himself.. but I have also included a German PhD student’s dissertation into the mix as the subject was written about over the span of three pages.
  • "Significant coverage" - Try googling: “John Mateer” instead of “John Thomas Mateer” for sources. There is a very large amount of varying reliable and independent sources covering the subject. Without all original research, the reliable sources left .. are MORE than enough to source this article.
  • “Reliable”- Forbes, National Geographic, ABC, The Weather Channel, TLC, Teen Vogue & Seventeen Magazine..
  • “Sources” - Article References are varied in both type and depth.
  • “Independent of the Subject” - the sources are indeed independent of the subject - it is clear to know this by a handful of mega-corporation names being the publication of these articles. Based on nomination explanation, the article John Thomas Mateer met the criteria in WP:GNG but had certain elements been removed, then it would not have met these standards. I took it upon myself to see passed this and take the critical comment as a learning experience. I cleaned up the oversourcing, added some more reliable sources while removing any content and sources that I would not need.
4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This advice is coming a bit late but you should really take advantage of Draft space and User Space like your Sandbox to create and develop articles, it's a "safer space" where editors are allowed to gradually improve articles over time. By placing articles that are unready directly into the main space of the project, they are subject to be tagged for Speedy Deletion or to be nominated for an AFD discussion. I understand that many new editors are eager to get their first work in the encyclopedia right away but it's not a friendly place to learn how to edit and articles are scrutinized and evaluated much more thoroughly than if they were in Draft space and submitted to AFC. Just something to consider for you next article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can request that instead of being deleted (if that is where the discussion is heading), that your article be "Draftified" instead and moved into Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz I can't close this 'cos there's been a delete vote, but if you want to close as draftify I have no objection as nominator... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will genuinely respect whatever you think is the right thing to do. I don’t understand how draftifying it is different from deleting it and just starting a draft of the article (genuinely have no clue) but if that’s the call you are making then I’m going to accept that.
I do agree I should have drafted the article first, but not it’s at the point that.. let’s say I remove the Filmography and leave the main parts of the article that are absolutely verified through reliable sources.. essentially getting rid of the stuff that needs to be sourced better and leave up what is meeting the standards set by Wikipedia… could I just replace the {{stub}} tag and render the article a stub again that is in need of further elaboration? Is this possible? 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace meaning put the {{stub}} tag back into the the source code of the article. There was once a stub tag and I removed it once the article got longer. I could revert the article to the state it was in when it was a stub and put the tag back. Sorry, I worded that poorly. Just wanted to clarify. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And while the article getting nominated for deletion wasn’t what I wanted, of course, I actually did just learn a lot through having it happen. I now understand the deletion process better, the importance of utilizing my sandbox and not jumping straight into live articles and of course how not to completely wreck an AfD page (truly sorry about that one). 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will of course leave off with the fact that WP:INTROTODELETE specifically states that articles in bad shape are not subject to the deletion process. So, while I do understand it needed to be developed further in drafting, this whole AfD process happening at all was unnecessary by Wikipedia’s own standards. Subject meets WP:GNG, the need for cleanup of an article does not warrant a nomination for deletion. By these standards set directly by Wikipedia, I am supporting the eventual Keep decision.. whenever that decision will get made and by whomever makes that decision. I hope they see that this deletion proposal directly contradicts the standards put in place by WP.
Thank you. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please draftify. I guess if it comes down to this article is going to be lost or sent to draft.. I’d prefer the latter. Just sad. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! See this is advice that I actually will take. Yeah I agree that probably would’ve been the right thing in hindsight. I rushed into it, but I genuinely don’t think that the subject doesn’t meet the WP:GNG like is being alluded to. The criteria are all met and that’s why I am personally saying Keep in response to the AfD. I will continue to take in the advice and peer reviews from editors who know what they’re doing on here, and I will hopefully be able to grow as a result of it. But my own lack of precision in the fine details of editing on Wikipedia (which is a hyper-specific craft that is going to take time to develop the skills to do second-nature) don’t change the notability of the subject. Much like how WP:AKON states no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability — I believe the inverse to be just as true. Poor editing from a newcomer (myself) doesn’t make a subject that meets the criteria for WP:GNG .. suddenly not meet these criteria anymore because of the poor editing.
The article needs work. I am beyond open to any suggestions and help that anyone would offer. However, I still think deletion is not warranted. I will respect whatever decision is made, of course. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've moved the article back to its original title. Leaning on delete for lack of meeting the GNG. I don't think this is notable. Maybe later, but not now. ~StyyxTalk? 19:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THank you, Styyx, for moving the article back. Along its travels over the past few days, it lost its AFD tag so I have replaced that. Let the AFD discussion proceed. Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify When I suggested draftification, it was not to be taken literally as a thing to do during an AFD discussion but as an act to take in the closure of this AFD. I do fear though that time in Draft space will be short and this article might be back in main space within a day or two. Instead, I recommend submitting it to AFC. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. I moved the article to draft as was discussed and after changing the article name (also discussed), I tried to add it to AfC to get it reviewed — I am realizing now that I added it back to the main-space. I am really sorry. Trust me I wouldn’t have risked it just getting deleted. I spent a lot of time trying to begin cleaning it up. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my god. I am sorry. I didn’t know that I had to wait for drafting it. I feel really stupid. My bad. I will let the discussion continue without further messing around with things. I will instead spend this time reading up on the rules of article creation/deletion etc. I apologize. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused because Draft:Article Name still seems to appear in search results. Is draft not the same as Sandbox? Sorry for a question that is likely very basic knowledge. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can just go ahead and Delete it honestly. It’s not even worth it at this point. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “ Not swayed by the author's Wikilawyering and bludgeoning.” Please go ahead and delete. I didn’t know that Wikipedia and the information on it was dictated by these sorts of things. Kind of appalling. What happened to the fact that AFD standards according to Wikipedia say not to vote upon the deletion? What about the fact that the subject quite literally meets every single criteria for WP:GNG? This is just social hour and I’m not into it. It doesn’t shock me to hear the editor retention here is horrible. You are all bullies. Delete the page. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4theloveofallthings, I didn't intend for my comments to lead to you quitting the project. We all make mistakes. I've been editing regularly for 9 years and if you come to my talk page, you find it full of comments from editors who are unhappy with something I've done. It's how you learn and become a better editor. You are free to retire if you want, but I think the message folks were sending you was that this article is not ready for main space. Some articles need a lot of time and attention to be ready for main space and that's the process of writing articles on Wikipedia. It's not quick and easy. I hope you reconsider, I think you still can make a contribution here. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 12 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Thomas_Mateer&oldid=1115963474"