Talk:Will Clark (actor)/Archive 1

Visuals
Just a quick note: If you think there are too many DVD covers on the page and want to delete any, please don't delete the Fantasies of White and Black. There is precious little representation of African American gay porn, let alone interracial encounters. Let's not make this "White American Gay Guys". Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   12:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Will Clark.jpg
Image:Will Clark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Will Clark redwood.jpg
Image:Will Clark redwood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Will Clark B W.jpg
Image:Will Clark B W.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)0

Nominated for deletion
I have placed this article up for deletion. The article reads like a press release and does not have any sources cited. It does not meet up to Wikipedias standards for bios of Living Persons. Therefore, unless someone wants to clean this article up and turn it into a legit wikipedia article, I will fight for deletion. Junebug52 18:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * winning awards does not make a subject notable! You must show why this individual qualifies to be a wikipedia subject under biography of living persons. You cannot show notablity by citing sources! Junebug52 20:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do read WP:PORNBIO and see that winning awards does indeed confer notability. You will lose any battle to delete this article.  Do not embarass yourself any further, please.  71.127.234.96 21:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is terrible and it should be deleted -- it is like a press release and has none of Wikipedia's standards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.105.146 (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think as editors we should be outraged that articles like this are permitted to exist on Wikipedia. We fight to keep articles from being deleted that are far more notable than these and in many cases we loose our battles. Then to have blatant self promotions and advertisements such as these which seem to be nothing more than an easy way for them to advertise their goods on a public forum. I am sure that was not the original design of Wikipedia. I feel this article as well as many others should be deleted due to their lack of notablity and advertisement agendas. I think I will devote my time and efforts for a while to doing just that. I will go through each othe there articles and have them nominated for deletion should they not meet notabilty standards. Junebug52 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This Advertisement
I want to know who keeps erasing the nominations for deletion. This article is an insanly poor attempt at free advertisment. Its a shame it exists in Wikiedia. I am a victim of dissapointment.--Lucius Sempronius Turpio 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the article insanely poor, it has NO REFERENCES-- Ther eis some one who keeps going around and erasing the tags off most the gay porn stars sites to keep them going -- these guys use Wikipedia for advertising which is illegal among other things! Clark has clearly written this article himself to try to get a contract liek "cocktails with th estars" or his FRAUDULENT Bad Boy Pool Parties up and runnign agian -- NO MONEY whatsoever went to charity from Clark's work - - ever -- hence, his inability to have references for this article -- there are no references because what is written here is a lie!


 * To those who want the article deleted: I suggest you list the article in AfD (Articles for Deletion), as opposed to to the other procedures. To list list in AfD, follow these instructions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. Arguments pro and con will be presented, and a decision will be made by an administrator one week later, after all the arguments have been presented. Alfons Åberg 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should never have been allowed! There is so much negative press on Will Clark that it is ridiculous. I think that the subject himself wrote this article to promote himself. It has been been shortened a few times but if it is not deleted it needs an entire re-write. BETTER TO JUST DELETE IT! The mentality of these gay porn stars to find free advertising is incredible 76.86.123.229 04:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously Wikipedia shouldn't be a commercial billboard. I will remid everyone, however, that the fact (apparently) that there is negative press coverage of Will Clark should provide perfect sources for turning the article into a critical article based on verifiable information that is independent of Will Clark and his producer. The information available being 'negative' is not in itself a reason to avoid the subject. Would someone care to look further into the matter and improve the article? Alfons Åberg 07:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gone through this article and I have taken out all of the fluff and self advertisements. It is a bare bones article now but it reads more encyclopedic. I have asked some admins to look at it to make sure the edits will stick. I am sure they will but I would rather err on the side of caution seeing the edit wars that happen in regards to this porno stuff. Junebug52 16:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How about those LONG unencylopedic lists.... Really pointless to keep them inthe article...  People can google his films and magazines and IF HE REALLY DID ALL THESE MAGAZINE SPREADS, then there ought to be some verifiable references! I say delete it and the article will be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.123.229 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading this updated article the WHOLE thing is a BORING and unencyclopedic list! It should have been deleted... The subject has no notability and no references to these things he claims to have done. One might put numbers 1-5 in the badly written Paragraph and then we have to look at the lists at the end... Real (hard copy) encylopedias do not have such stupid lists...  How much longer before we can nominate this for deletion again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.123.229 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article is not even in paragraph form. It is merely a series of 5 sentences saying Clark did this or that and a long boring list... Can this be improved?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.105.146 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have done some researsch and based on what I found, I can create a very negative view from the press on Will Clark (porn star). This article does not cite a single source yet it makes bold claims about the subject's notability. I am happy to re-write this with reliable sources but I know the people who support Will Clark (porn star) will not like it and it will probably be vandalized. Also, since no one has given this sad article any attention in a long time, maybe it should just be deleted. LaniMakani 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to do something with this article however, the subject of this article also edits the article. Or at least that is my opinion. You will meet with some resistence since he has evidently won a few awards and is a valid escort. That grants him access to a Wikipedia article. Sad but true. Junebug52 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmmmmmmm do just the awards merit the article or is "valid escort?" a reason to merit a WP article on its own?  It is my VERY STRONG opinion that the subject not only edits this article (his real name is Andrew Altenberg), but that he has used WP for self-promotion.  The article as it stands is a mess -- EVERYTHING needs to be cleaned-up and I would think that the subject would rather have a neat and organized stub then either the article as it is or a totally neutral article based on the reliable sources that I have managed to find. (note: the references are not necessarily a positive Image of Will Clark porn star but they are reliable and citable none the less.) Robin Redford 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Robin, I say go for it! I rewrote the article to what it is. I cut a good bit of it out and then placed cite tags. It was a lot worse than it is now. I agree it leaves a lot to be desired but it was all I had to work with at that time. According to the rules at WP:PORNBIO he would be entitled to an article. I don't like it either! Junebug52 00:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am confused too as to how there is a list of publications that Clark was susposedly featured in but no one can cross reference this to Websites or provide ISSN numbers to verify sources and big claims made in this article. I would challenge that subnject was in any of these publications and also challenge that he won any of these awards because if these things were true there would be reliable sources.  Some minor editing was made by me to make the article more readable and there are some specific facts that really need to be cited.  Fuzzyred 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrible Article!

 * This article has been tagged for a long time and it looks and reads very badly. It also makes some outrageous claims quoting publications that if were true would have an ISSN number and a valid citation.  In fact, there is not a single cited fact in its entirity.  For months no one has even cared about this article.  Perhaps it truly would serve Wikipedia to delete it.  Fuzzyred (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has been cleaned up a lot, citations added, and notability established. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The birthdate is clearly a lie and there are NUMEROUS Citations on the net to prove it wrong! There are also numerous and credible citations avail to prove what an utter fraud Clark truly is!76.167.91.119 (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will Clark was born in 1961. The source for his birthdate is totally known for its unreliability!  This is a badly written SELFPUBLISHED article where Andrew Altenberg aka: Will Clark brags about himself - THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED!  Many of the charities who Clark supposedly contributed to have contrary things to say....  This article uses sources which are opinionated and full of fiction and should not be acceptable on Wikipedia!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.91.119 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While public records for Andrew M. Altenburg (note spelling) indicate that the 1968 birthdate is, in fact, incorrect, it supports a DOB in 1964, not 1961. The rest of the allegations in the previous unsigned note are as unsubstantiated as the alleged assertions in the article, so this comment is limited to only that which I can verify independently myself. Absurdist1968 (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it can be verified than please publish it because this article is full of the subject himself trying to make this into a mini-autobiography and that is not acceptable Dooor-Matt (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(actor)/(pornographic actor) RfC
An RfC which may affect this article's title is currently taking place (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography). Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Will Clark (actor). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219221249/http://gayvnawards.avn.com:80/noms/pastwinners.html to http://gayvnawards.avn.com/noms/pastwinners.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080308094021/http://www.psbottomline.com:80/pulp/ to http://www.psbottomline.com/pulp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Will Clark's real name & Correct Age
People know this actor who uses the name Will Clark. People know that his true and correct legal name is Andrew Altenberg. People also know that he was not born in 1968. He was born March 9, 1964. His correct age is 53. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makana999 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)