Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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. There is clear consensus that the sources provided do not have substantive coverage of the subject of this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mateer (musician)

[edit]

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

John Mateer (musician) (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)

Almost no independent or reliable sourcing. Sourcing that is independent and reliable does not provide WP:SIGCOV, if it mentions the article subject at all which many of the sources in the article do not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas Mateer for a previous discussion which ended in the author (the same as for the current article) requested deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This nomination is not even worth exerting energy on. There are articles/sources from Forbes, CNN, Seventeen Magazine, Teen Vogue, New York Daily News, BBC Three, ABC, NBC & Los Angeles Times. Many of these articles are exclusively written about the subject with zero involvement from the subject. There is also a German academic thesis cited — amongst other things — that speaks on the significance of the subject. Some of these articles from top news and media outlets on the globe even state having reached out to the subject for comment but received no reply. Excruciatingly blatant examples of independent, reliable and significant coverage.

    WP:SIGCOV is satisfied and then some with this article & it’s sourcing.
🂡🂡9t5 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some of those examples here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish:

Forbes, Forbes again, CBS, CNN, Seventeen Magazine, Teen Vogue, New York Daily News, Philly Voice, BBC3, ABC, The Weather Channel & Los Angeles Times, Social Media Activism in the Obama Era - Thesis (p. 171-173 — labeled on the document as p. 166-168)

Not to be argumentative, but these are all available directly in the reference section of the article.

Regards, 9t5 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no sigcov there. A paragraph about social media response to the assault in a non-peer reviewed paper, a few video clips about a storm, and some routine coverage of a single event does not establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider significant coverage if not an assault drawing attention from the national media to the lack of hate crime protections for LGBT people in Pennsylvania? As for the storm, there I suggest watching the documentaries referenced, all of which feature the subject. I am almost certain at one point there was also a reference to the inclusion of the subject in a recap of the year 2012 that was televised in the program "20/20".. I’ll have to look. You are asserting your personal opinion by regarding these things as insignificant, but given one of these events you suggest is insignificant was apparently significant enough for a German scholar to include it in her PhD thesis, and considering the article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies — perhaps it’s just significant events within the LGBT community that you find insignificant? I ask you kindly to take a look at this. Can you further elaborate on why you assert its insignificance, and furthermore can you reference sections of Wikipedia’s guidelines that back your stance? I look forward to your reply.

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

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

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

Stereo Stickman (US)
"John Mateer's 'New York Sound'"
January 16, 2024 · by: Rebecca Cullen

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (US)
"John Mateer: Hate crimes laws protect people like me - and you"
May 28, 2023 · by: John Mateer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Regards, 9t5 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again, not to be argumentative but your nomination statement states:

Almost no independent or reliable sourcing.

I genuinely respect this project and certainly your role as an admin, but I am starting to become disheartened by certain editors who use privileges to take Wikipedia Policy & Guidelines and distort them in any way they need to in order to fit their argument.

A community leader should be more than willing to admit oversight or accept that while they hold a high seat, it’s meant to be used to enforce the policy that already exists as is not redefine it without consensus. I am respectfully concluding my involvement in this discussion as I would like to hear the opinions of our peers, but I wish you all the best and it was nice meeting you. 9t5 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has significant coverage or anything that exceeds WP:ROUTINE or WP:BLP1E. You even included a source that the subject wrote. Many of these don't mention the article subject, e.g. Long Island Medium Season 4 recap of 'Bouffants and Bingo' Dumping lists of sources with no explanation of why or how they help establish notability isn't sufficient. Also, knock off the perhaps it’s just significant events within the LGBT community that you find insignificant? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience sake, would you please provide links to these? I am attempting to go through them one by one, but it takes considerable time without links provided. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk - it was a plaintext list I found online. Again, really trying to not be argumentative here, but why go through all of them? Every single source cited doesn’t need to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV .. so I’m confused why this has turned into a mission of making sure every single last source is up to par with WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. You could save yourself a whole lot of time if you just sought out three and then ran those through the test. Is it independent of the subject? Is it reliable? Is it more than a trivial mention? Well. Then it satisfies WP:SIGCOV (what the nomination is claiming there are no sources that do) and if you can find at least three that pass this test, then we have satisfied WP:GNG. Also note that notability is not a temporary state as per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This subject has long been established at notable in more than just one area. We actually had a while discussion two years ago on what to even put as the identifier for the article since there is a poet with the same name. I had initially suggested using the subjects middle name but it landed on “(musician)”.. Please don’t stress yourself out trying to have every single source be up to the standards of WP:GNG.. just three. Do the test. If anyone needs, I can do it for you and chart out the requirements satisfied by this article. I can also explain why the nominator thinking a topic or news report is important is not a requirement for WP:SIGCOV like they seem to think. I can also explain why the assertion that something must be personally a topic the nominator finds important in order for it to be included in the encyclopedia despite satisfying WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG is a form of censorship and I can also explain that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I may only have 4,000 edits, but that’s 4,000 edit with 87% remaining live. I am far from a disruptive or unintelligent editor, and I am allowed to find the disregard of Wikipedia policy and guidelines by a sitting admin to be offensive. I am also allowed to say that out loud. I am not here to kiss their ass, I am here to contribute to a project I am passionate about.

Cheers. 9t5 (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at the first three, for example, you've got an opinion piece] in a student paper, an extremely passing mention that name drops Mateer once, and a press release distributed by PR Newswire. The lack of links is making it a bit hard to parse through here and actually get to the root truth.
Alternatively, since you are already deeply familiar with the sourcing, would you be willing to the WP:THREE sources that you believe indicate that this individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ScottishFinnishRadish Apologies, I did not comment on your mention of the first nomination discussion. That discussion took place before I developed the article and I requested speedy delete as the author to provide me time to develop the article. This was before I knew I could vote to draftify, which other contributors to the discussion were suggesting — including Liz, who personally reached out telling me she didn’t want me to give up on the article.

    I am unsure why you believe that previous removal of an article at the authors request means that subsequent versions of the article are forevermore subject to deletion, even following development and appropriate sourcing.

    I am interested to see how this discussion goes, but I stand behind this nomination being a waste of everyone’s time.
🂡🂡9t5 20:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please make your signature smaller. Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have gone through all the 69 sources in the current version of the article and there is no significant biographical coverage in independent reliable sources needed to satisfy WP:GNG (the closest, though not close, are the subject's appearance on ABC's Katie and a psychic show). The subject doesn't come close to qualifying as a notable musician, filmmaker or entrepreneur either despite the article's title or lede sentence. The best claim to notability is as a victim of an assault; (see this or sources attached to content (properly) removed in this edit due to BLP concerns) but IMO the subject would still fail as per WP:BIO1E and would, in any case, require a complete rewrite of the article as that about a crime rather than a pretend-biography.
(TL;DR)  The article as it stands is all padding based on trivial mentions, self-published media and unreliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've tried to find any RS sources with sigcov - but have failed - beyond the single event. This, which is referenced above for example, started to look promising, but then it references the wikipedia article and is actually a site offering paid-for articles. Even the one critic review of "Metronome" referenced by IMDb is in fact a link back to a Wikipedia upload. I'd be happy to be pinged to change my !vote, but I don't see presently how the subject meets any of the WP notability criteria. ResonantDistortion 07:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ResonantDistortion I remember this! I did that. It is a ZINE. There is no online copy of it but it is handed out locally so I was unsure how to document it correctly. That was back when I just started editing in October-ish 2022 I think. I apologize. Nobody is watching any of the documentaries apparently —- the BBC3 one being one that goes into great depth on the video recorded during sandy. There is also a Weather Channel special that was entirely about the video. You need to just seek some of these out as they are not readily available for free. If I was given time, I could find alternative ways to perhaps transcribe these documentaries for citation. But again, this was a targeted nomination by someone who didn’t like that I proposed a policy against targeted nominations. At the base line, I would like to also consider the fact that is absolutely uncalled for behavior by an admin. Considering they are supposed to foster a productive space not aim to harass new editors. 9t5 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked at the sources and can't see any significant coverage. A Hurricane Sandy video and an assault are not enough to base an article on unless the sources discuss the subject in depth, and I'm not seeing it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pawnkingthree would you openly state that your reasoning is, in fact, in opposition to the language at WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV? Because you have one person claiming this is a one event article, then another claiming that separate events aren’t important enough despite non-trivial mention in reliable independent sources. Do you see how many guidelines and policies I am referencing in this discussion? I would like the same in return. Nobody is giving me any guideline or policy that backs their decision. Just evasion of the ones that are currently on the books. It’s sad. It’s a problem. And it will be addressed beyond this AfD.

    Regards. 9t5 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just for further information, ScottishFinnishRadish was involved in a dispute regarding my policy proposal and while discussing whether or not the policy was actually voted on correctly or not and whether it should be tagged with {{failed policy}}, tagged it as such anyway before the talk page discussion even concluded. The editor then went and wrote on my talk page a frustrated and rudely written demand for me to change my signature because of the colors. I politely agreed. Following the demand for that, and tagging the policy (a policy which specifically was aimed at preventing targeted nominations and championed WP:WITCHHUNT) according to timestamps - @ScottishFinnishRadish spent 30-40 minutes going through my contribution history to find something to nominate and this is the best they could find. It’s still shaky, and I am saying right now that the fact I wasn’t given the chance to improve the article before a nom was thrown my way is uncivil, rude and exactly why this website has a retention problem. ScottishFinnishRadish thinks they are a solver of the retention problem when indeed they are the retention problem. This is a targeted nomination and I am asking for editors to think about what they are voting before they do, as this discussion will be permanently available and referenced again.
9t5 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. It seems like there are two potentially notable things about Mateer: his coverage of Hurricane Sandy and the hate crime that he was a victim of. His coverage of Hurricane Sandy was covered repeatedly. However, that is 1 event. I'm not sure its significant coverage but I think the point could be argued, particularly with the O6 news article and the LA times article. The hate crime was also mentioned above, however it is not anywhere in the article. In terms of whether that could be used for notability if it were in the article, see WP:VICTIM. He is not someone who "had a large role within a well-documented historic event." Thus, I don't think it makes sense to claim notability based on that--no matter how well covered the event was. So we're left with just the hurricane. And although there's some coverage of that, if we look at WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, I don't think that "any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage"; he is only covered "in connection with an event or organization" (from WP:PSEUDO). The event in this case is Hurricane Sandy. There might be enough coverage to write something about amateur photography and Hurricane Sandy and mention Mateer, but ultimately I don't think there's enough for his own article. I hope this reasoning was clear. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SFR, plenty of mentions have been trundled out by those advocating keep but my view is none of them meet our standard for significant coverage, per Abecedare. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2024 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Mateer_(musician)

Leave a Reply