Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.P. Sloane


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

J.P. Sloane

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-glorifying WP:AUTOBIO resume of obscure actor. No indication that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE, as only apparent no WP:V claim to any prominence whatsoever is obscure 'Angel Awards'. [Correction: cited link does not in fact verify this claim. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) ] Does not appear to be even listed in IMDB. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you go to the various links just added on this site you will see verification by third parties. The documentation via the reference books may be accessed at many libraries world wide.  As a picture is worth a thousand words, pictures of past productions including the Ma and Pa Kettle series and comic book covers with J.P. Sloane and Lash LaRue are also available through links at jpsloane.com and other sites throughout the web.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, but noting regardless, the above user has conflict of interest. Esteffect (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, putting this article's text into Google comes up with J. P. Sloane's own website, however according to the logs he has given permission for the text to be used here, therefore this isn't a clear copyright violation. I note this as I almost made the mistake of speedying this here. Esteffect (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to the above critic, regarding the so-called “…obscure 'Angel Award’s” one only has to access their web site to see that this organization, which was hosted for twenty-five years by the late Steve Allen (originator of the “Tonight Show”) is anything but obscure.  Excellence in Media has an illustrious history as well as a formidable list of inductees.  See < http://www.angelawards.com/celebrities.html>.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the fact that it's former host and/or some of its inductees were famous does not raise this award out of obscurity. Prominence would require (i) significant third party coverage of the award, and/or (ii) that the award be conferred by a prominent professional organisation. The fact that it appears that (i) anybody can nominate for this award & (ii) that this requires paying a $165 fee (see above link), tends to indicate that this is not a particularly prestigious award. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above criticism of an entry fee for an Angel Award is a bit disingenuous. All award programs, be it The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Cleo, Golden Globe, Grammy, Angel, Dove etc.,  must be accompanied by submission fees.  Usually the production companies act as the sponsor of the artist they wish to receive an award although many, such as C.L.E.O., Angel Award, and Golden Globe may be entered by independent production entities.  Entree fees do not guarantee an award.  This shall be my last word on the subject although I am truly enjoying the discourse and I appreciate your willingness to research and debate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nice set of awards, but they don't confer notability even if they all are true. Doesn't demonstrate notability by significant coverage from sufficient sources — and autobiography plainly doesn't help.  Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete – Although the article hints notability, it is somewhat unencyclopedic and contains no reliable sources.  TheAE  talk / sign  06:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note on sources: of the 8 sources currently cited for this article, 3 are unreliable (wikis, or wiki-clone), 1 fails to verify the cited information, and 3 are non-independent. This leaves http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/JPSLOANE as the sole reliable independent source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. I doubt that the Marquis Who's Whos can be considered independent (or reliable) sources, since the great majority of their entries are self-submissions by the subjects. This Forbes article may be of interest. Deor (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tracked down discussion on this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9. Consensus seems to be that MWW is at least as reliable as a WP:SELFPUB as to details of the biographee, but bestows little in the way of notability. Given that it is referenced purely for his inclusion in this volume of dubious notability, I think that this can be seen as an irrelevance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources. I decided to look up the subject's role in the "Ma and Pa Kettle" movie series because I figured that would be easy to verify. According to the article, he played Billy Kettle in the series. Well, the Internet Movie Database shows that five different actors played Billy Kettle over the course of the series -- but none of them had a name anything like the subject's name. Maybe he changed his name, but even if he did, which one of the five Billy Kettles was he? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has been the subject of an OTRS request at 2009022210003659. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would keep, trim, and rewrite. The kernel of notability is there; the fact that the current article is bad doesn't mean that no article should be here at all. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions: what "kernel of notability" would this be? Bare unsubstantiated assertions of notability are worthless in an AfD discussion. And of what relevance is the OTRS request (which average editors cannot see) to the notability of this topic? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The OTRS ticket relates to permission and a concern about the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it stands, this article fails WP:V. Admittedly, online sources may be slim for someone whose principal activities predate the WWW, but the total absence of relevant, independent Google Books or Google News hits is not encouraging. If appropriate sources can be adduced before this AfD ends, I'll reconsider. Deor (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would delete for now, but - if the article is improved and asserts notability in a verifiable manner as needed - not apply CSD G4 if it is recreated. Esteffect (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable; if the article is recreated, it will need some serious trimming (cause "fluffy" is an understatement) and the addition of verifiable sources--and they don't need to be web-accessible. But for one of the 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century" I would expect some significant coverage (also keeping in mind that the internet was there at the beginning of that century). Drmies (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG Keep. Unless we are to believe he has fabricated his entire (poorly designed and promotional) website, there certainly is some notability here. And - OMG! - look like he co-wrote You Can Be a Virgin Again and the follow-up The Christian Counselor's Guide for Restoring Virginity. I know I am fascinated be revirgination. He has a former life as a rock singer and then started a ministry making appearances on "Christian television shows as The PTL Club, Lester Sumrall Today, Richard Roberts Live, and The 700 Club, Lesea Broadcastings World Harvest, Trinity Broadcasting Network's Praise the Lord, etc." Those are the biggies. So he's been interviewed about something on at least seven television shows. He has an internationally syndicated radio show. Again from his website "Hear him share how he went from atheism to salvation and from a rock singer to a biblical scholar" - there is something here - even if all swept into a corner, it adds up enough notability. Thus remains writing it all better and unearthing reliable sources. Almost forgot, his fields, Biblical scholar and evangelizing preacher don't readily get mainstream attention unless they get caught breaking laws. I hardly expect to see a lot of this in mainstream media so countering systematic bias I think is also in play here. -- Banj e  b oi   22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that a show that reaches other countries through "satellite shortwave radio and the Internet" can be accurately described as "internationally syndicated". Your faith in Mr. Sloane's truthfulness is touching, but without reliable sources discussing him and his achievements, there's nothing to put in an article about him. (By the way, there are plenty of biblical scholars who get mainstream attention.) Deor (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I do think they were technically syndicated in the Xtian ministries - possibly to their churches in those countries but whatever. I simply have nothing that convinces me his website and the article is a pack of lies. Just that he's not a proper media whore like everyone else. -- Banj e  b oi   03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The books you refer to were published by Xulon Press, a self-publishing company. Siawase (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also may be true but simply riveting in concept, a guide to ministering to young women on how to become virginal again. This is the stuff situation comedy was built for. -- Banj e  b oi   10:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That these books are self-published also raises further questions about the prominence of the Angel Awards, given that they hand out awards for such minor material. The creators of these awards turn out to be a pair of crime fiction writers, incidentally. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ease up already, we get it, you want to smite this article away. Fine, point drilled to bits repeatedly. An award is still an award and may be one of the highest honors, it really doesn't seem that important to quibble at this point. On this one we'll have to agree to disagree. The only issue, IMHO, is that sourcing is not readily forthcoming. I think this would pass if the television interviews were cited but personally I don't have the interest. This is different than what certainly feels like personalizing an AfD against a newby editor, COI or otherwise. Our civility policies are pretty clear we should be welcoming. -- Banj e  b oi   13:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the awards can safely be deemed to not be a 'highest honour', as they lack an article (and seeing as we have articles on awards such as this, that's an indication that they are minor). Esteffect (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, given that this award appears to be the only claim to notability that Sloane himself is pushing back upon (see his comments above), I don't think a degree of counter-argument on this point is unreasonable. Sourcing is always the central issue in determining notability -- otherwise it devolves into personal opinion, and articles on every editor's favourite aunt or uncle. If this is perceived as 'personalising', it is out of fustration at the difficulty in having deleted a blatantly self-promotional piece, for which no reliably-sourcable replacement appears to exist. If people keep harping on with unsubstantiated assertions that this guy is notable, I'll continue pushing back with substantiated arguments as to why he's not. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning "You Can be a Virgin Again" being of no value because it is self-published by Xulon-- it may be helpful to understand that Xulon is the Christian arm of Salem Communications. However, Salem also has a political arm called "Town Hall Press."  In 2007, Town Hall Press had a self published book by Senator Fred Thompson who also was a presidential candidate entitled "Government at the Brink.”  Thompson’s ideas are no less valid because the Senator chooses to speed up the publishing process by publishing with Xulon’s sister publishing house Town Hall Press <http://www.amazon.com/Government-Brink-Causes-Waste-Mismanagement/dp/160266854X>.
 * Many people for many reasons self-publish. First the obvious reason is that some can not get published.  Others self publish because they are in a special field and do speaking tours where the profit from selling a self-published book to a targeted audience, far out distances the meager royalties that publishing houses pay.  By self publishing one is better able to underwrite one’s cost of ministry.  My field is Christian ministry and not the type of genre cited by the above link highlighted by (talk) link which leeds to: “Bad Sex in Fiction” ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Review#Bad_Sex_in_Fiction_Award .  Our book is a reassuring and uplifting Christian, biblically based self help book, aimed at restoring ones virtue not sex for entertainment as your link suggests.  I am also in contact with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to help me document my role as Billy Kettle. J.P. Sloane (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference of Literary_Review was not referring to your book; I was using it as an example of a (very much trivial) award which has an article, in relation to the Angel awards which do not. Apologies for the confusion. Esteffect (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * J.P. Sloane, as I've stated here and elsewhere I have little reason to doubt this article's content or your website. The likely first problem here was the press release tone which is waaay over the top for an encyclopedia. We can fix that but there is little point as has been blunty pointed out that we need to show notability of any subject and that requires reliable sourcing. These are the challenges to be met. Personally I feel there is enough here to meet the threshold of notability between the acting, television appearances, radio show, scholar and ministry work. It's an interesting narrative as well - a good article can be written to pull it all together. Had the tone not been off the chart self-promotional sounding this may have skated a bit but would still be nicked eventually for want of reliable sourcing. Likely newspaper articles were written about you/your work. Even if in Christian ones they help verify what is being presented as facts. Start finding those - maybe you have a press file from that long ago? If yu can sort out the dates and shows you appeared on that would also help. There is even a chance recordings of those shows exist. Frankly, if worse comes to worse, get rebooked on some shows and then you can be quoted in talking about yourself because a person is considered to be an expert on themselves. I do hope you continue helping on other articles as well so you can see more how this whole project works. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least, rewrite it. [As it is], it's puff. Ventifax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[Lengthy ramble by J.P. Sloane moved to talk. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I would further note that uw-coi, which J.P. Sloane has received on his user talk explicitly contains the following admonition: "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors" (which I assume would also include deletion discussions on an article on the editor themselves). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.````J.P. Sloane
 * Delete Despite the article and the lengthy discussion above, I can't find a single secondary source discussing the subject of the article. Is there a link showing that the subject has done something notable? Is there a link asserting that any of the subject's awards are notable? Johnuniq (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources don't properly establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.