Talk:John McMullen (broadcaster)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Note The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.

The subject of this article was deemed 'non notable celebrity' by Wikipedia in January 2007 and the article was deleted. A new article was recently created on this subject by another author and this article was nominated to be and was again deleted. Due to a claim made by the original author of this current article claiming 'he believes the previous article was on John McMullen, the catholic priest', this article was un-deleted. Because of this I resurrected the last incarnation of the original wikipedia article on this subject and inserted it into this article as proof it is indeed on the same subject individual.

The first deleted article was under the title "John McMullen" with no "(broadcaster)" suffix. When the original article was deleted in January, the authors of the article for John McMullen, the catholic priest, changed their article to take the subsequent vacancy under the "John McMullen" wikipedia stub. This is likely the source of the confusion by this articles original author.

I will be renominating this article for deletion under the same criteria from its original deletion. This artile features a non-notable celebrity, it also appears to focus on past criminal convitions of the subject, and both the subject and the article and its content do not meet Wikipedia standards for 'living persons biography' or 'notable celebrity' as I understand them.

WikiInformer 14:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked the deletion logs for both John McMullen and John McMullen (broadcaster) and find no mention of an AfD. Can you provide a link to the AfD to back up your assertion? McMullen made history, and the more-balanced version of the article (before your recent replacement of much of its content with the January 2007 version) appears to satisfy notability criteria. Wikipedia is not paper and we can, indeed, cover someone whose notability is in the niche of the LGBT community. --Ssbohio 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ssbohio: From the main wikipedia page, click the "Special Pages" link on the left-hand menu. Then click "Logs" on the resulting page. Then type "John_McMullen" in the search box for title. You will then see the notes from the admin that deleted the original article in January 2007 which state "non-notable personality, focuses on exposing past convictions" by admin Jimfbleak. To be perfectly clear, McMullen himself lobbied that the original article be removed to the article exposing his past criminal activities. You should write him to let him know this article has been resurrected... you'll be suprised as to how fast this article disappears. WikiInformer 10:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And when you pasted in the old version of the article, how is that not an "intentional recreation of deleted content?" It's disingenuous to restore the article's focus on McMullen's criminal record then cite the focus on exposing past convictions as a reason to delete. It's like killing your parents then begging mercy from the Court as an orphan. I looked at the logs and I'm not seeing any information that supports your report, above; neither do I see any information that refutes your report about the previous version of this article. Perhaps you could have an admin review the deleted versions and settle this question once and for all?
As the information on McMullen's criminal record is essentially uncited and apparently places undue weight on this aspect of McMullen's life, I will be removing it per BLP. A citation that leads to a search page is not a citation. Further, searching on the case numbers given shows that there have been two criminal cases against a person or persons named John McMullen (but with two different stylings of the name), but does not establish a conviction, sentence, or place of confinement. In many ways, a misleading source is worse than a missing one, in that it gives the reader false confidence in the provenance of what he's reading. Even if you're copy & pasting from a deleted version of the article, you have an obligation to make sure that your contribution meets the standard as far as point-of-view and sourcing. --Ssbohio 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ssbohio: My take on your reply to me was that it was intended to be a flame... so "back at'cha". Let's go over the points you just made one by one shall we?
1) Let's go over the timeline regarding my reposting of the previously deleted article. You created this stub on Wikipedia and shortly thereafter I petitioned that it be deleted, which it was. You lodged a 'complaint' on September 19, 2007, at the UserTalk page of the deleting admin, Lucasbfr, where you told them you believed the previously deleted article (January 2007) on this subject wasn't written on McMullen the broadcaster but McMullen the Catholic Priest (see my explaination above for reference). Based on that erroneous information from you the admin undeleted this article. I later followed-up, saw the notes and the reversion, and re-posted the originally deleted article as proof to you (and whomever cared) that we were all talking about the same John McMullen. Rather than immediately re-petitioning for deletion as I had intended and mentioned we instead bagan this lively discussion which is where we are now. Saying that I'm being disingenuous by reposting the previously deleted article is totally untrue... it was reposted as proof that you were sloppy in your research contesting the deletion and NOT to be nasty to you or the subject of this article. If you really want an admin to review the complete history of this and the previously deleted article then you should contact one -- I'm not about to do your work for you but I will be happy to fact check any changes you make in the interests of accuracy.
2)The information regarding John McMullen's criminal past is not uncited and does not place undue weight on this aspect of McMullen's life as you claim -- afterall it's only 1 sentence in the entire article. The mention of his criminal convictions are in context as it can't be said that he was "the first program director at Seattle's KUBE-FM, which he helped build with friend and mentor Michael O'Shea in 1981," and not metion that during his time there he was convicted of felony embezzlement from the radio station he helped to build with his friend and mentor. Could you please tell us how this one relevant sentence rapes and pillages the remainder of the article? The web site reference to substantiate the conviction is true and accurate -- the County and Court of record as well as the case numbers have been personally verified by me (yes, I spent the money to order hard copies of the charging and sentencing documents which just happen to be on the desk beside me as I type this). While it's true case no. 86-1-02317-4 states the name of "John Patrick McMullen III" and case no. 90-1-01894-2 states the name of "John Patrick McMullen" on the Court web site's index, if you took the time to do even the smallest bit of research beyond that page you'd see that the whole names, dates of birth, social security numbers and 'victims' of the crimes are identical -- it is him. I would even offer to redact and scan the documents for posting on this Wiki, but I feel that would be WAY over the line of what is required (and border on vindictive). No matter what logic you use to try and dispute it, the conviction is real, verified and anyone who cares can easily get a copy of the documents from the public record. This article (should it remain) and this discussion should NOT be solely about this conviction. Like I've said before, is this article going to be a biography or a press release? You can't just list the 'good' without listing the 'bad' if this article is to have any credibility whatsoever and truly be a biorgraphy. To use a wacked out and inappropriate analogy as you did, it's be like a Wiki on OJ Simpson that omitted his criminal and civil trials regarding his dead wife because it would be embarrasing or the subject of the article might object -- sure he played great football for many years and was successful to some degree in the entertainment industry so let's just overlook that little tantrum where several people died by his hand. I hope we're getting closer to putting the debate over the conviction to rest because there are much more important parts of this article (including whether or not it is worthy of existing in the first place) that should be discussed.
Just as with SatyrTN's posting in this discussion stating there were 148 Google News pages on McMullen (when 15 minutes of research going through them would show that claim was incorrect), I would put forward to you that before you start to make accusations about the intentions of myself or other editors to this article or the facts that have been referenced and presented that you invest significantly more time to actually do your homework and verify all the facts before lashing out. It'd be safe to say that you and I will be agreeing to disagree on this article. WikiInformer 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while McMullen is a fine person, his contributions do not deem a place in these pages any more than mine do. Having listened to his programs I would even dare to say that he would agree that he should not be the subject of an article here. Article should be deleted.Griff 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - co-founder the first 24-hour gay-specific radio Web site and a radio channel that reaches 100,000 listeners makes him notable. Plus the Advocate article and 148 other Google news hits [1] satisfies WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, SatyrTN, but there are actually only 42 pages that deal with the subject of this article using the criteria "'John McMullen' gay" at the Google link you cite. The remainder are of articles completely unrelated to the subject of _this_ article and just happen to have the same name and the word gay somewhere on the page. GAYBC wasn't the first '24-hour gay-specific radio web site' as there were two others albeit they were regional. GAYBC only broadcast 12-hours of live and/or original content during the weekday at its prime with the remaining 12-hours a tape loop of the previous 12-hours. It would be more factual to say it was the first gay-specific company that was founded and funded to offer around-the-clock gay-themed streaming audio content via the internet to a worldwide audience.
I do have to agree with Griff in that while McMullen may have done this-and-that and a select few individuals may consider his accomplishments and failures noteworthy, there are likely many involved in this article (myself included) that have appeared in national print publications on many occasions and have relevant and noteworthy news/page matches in Google that far exceed his. However, they would likely not either condider themselves, or be considered by others, as worthy to be the subject of a Wiki and I believe that is on a basic level what this discussion is (or should be) about.
If the consensus of those involved or concerned with this article are in favor of continuing it then I will fully support that. I will however make every effort to ensure that this article is as complete as possible within the guidelines of WP:BOLP, citing all source material as required and including all factual information (whether perceived to be flattering, neutral, or unflattering), with the hope that this article does not degrade into a press release sanctioned and edited by the subject as it was nearly a year ago. I would like to state for the record that should McMullen himself begin to raise issue with this article for his own reasons (litigious or otherwise) that I was a 'voice of reason' to let this sleeping dog lay.
Just my $.02, for what it's worth. WikiInformer 07:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiInformer, I appreciate your dedication to complete and accurate reporting within these pages.. and a thank you for your support for my point. I want to again register my voice in support of deletion. Griff 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not as if Wikipedia is running out of electrons. His creation of GayBC is notable, both for its impact on the LGBT community and for its advancement of Internet radio. Perhaps (and this is just a trial balloon) the solution is not to have an article on McMullen, but one on GayBC? To me, some coverage seems to be warranted. --Ssbohio 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ssbohio: I second the motion that there should be an article on GAYBC itself, completely seperate and apart from McMullen the person. WikiInformer 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)