Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. D. Slater (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Consensus is now clear to keep after the last nomination in June. (non-admin closure) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 17:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

J. D. Slater
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spite to the incredible amount of sources, few go further passing mention and none is a deep coverage. They are mostly passing mentions and those which are not come from his own web page or are just a very few lines long (5 to 6 lines. not deep coverage). Considering that, not being independent or third party, interviews have a small weight into establishing notability (and the interviews included in the sources are not on notable media) here there is nothing that can establish notability. Plus, this article is highly promotional with over abundance of trivial information. This is the second time I nominate this article so I think it is fair to ping anybody who last time debate it. ,,  ,  ,  ,  ,  . I think I included everybody but if I forgot someone I apologize and feel free to ping him. Thank you AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: One-Handed History: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography has significant coverage; it looks like there are several pages specifically devoted to Slater's approach to safer sex in his films. "The Sound of Sex" from Out magazine looks like a magazine article about Slater's use of music in his films. The link is an archive of Slater's website, but Slater was reprinting interviews and articles from other publications. I believe that this demonstrates notability. Alejandro's concern that the article has too much trivial detail can be fixed through normal editing, and doesn't need a deletion discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * that article is not from out magazine but from this web site here: https://outpersonals.com/ ...quite different. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look closer. How is it different? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also see these articles in the Bay Area Reporter: "Gay Cable Blossoms" (1989) and "Porn Star-Producer Slater Quits Facing Legal Flap in Britain" (1991). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * what do I need to look closer? OUT Magazine is a respected LGBT world wide magazine (out.com, https://www.out.com/), while https://outpersonals.com/ is a not reliable paying web site. Bay Area Reporter is a local and niche news paper. Plus, that is not at all a deep coverage. PS. I asked to the previous closer before nominating again. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to fight about OutPersonals — I thought they were connected, but if not, then don't worry about it. But: the Bay Area Reporter is a historically important and well-respected LGBT newspaper; it's based in the San Francisco area but was influential far beyond that. If the Bay Area Reporter is "niche", then so is Out Magazine, because they target the same LGBT audience. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Out Personals, at that time was ... Out magazine’s spin-off, now the website is taken by someone else. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, and procedural close, nom is currently at ANI where their poor judgement at targeting certain gay porn bios is discussed. All apparently in some vendetta over Carlo Masi.The latest AfD for this article closed five weeks ago. Despite noms assertions the collected references produced a good article, and a handful of sources indeed go into the subject with depth. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your assessment as a good article was disputed in the first AfD (which closed as no consensus). There is a genuine good faith difference of opinion here.  Reopening the debate without new facts doesn't change things.  As noted in other AfD debates, the nominator is engaged in a housecleaning. So far, more non-notable articles have been deleted than notable ones kept.  That doesn't look like a vendetta to me. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This apparently all started with nom’s effort to write, then save from AfD Carlo Masi, the vendetta started there against gay porn figures. More details are in the ANI filing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gleeanon409, I don't think it's necessary or helpful to speculate on Alejandro's motives. The main point to focus on is that there are good-quality sources that demonstrate notability. Everything else is a distraction. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn’t bother. But nom has a *unique* and disruptive origin story, followed by a series of disruptions, including personally attacking me in what must be a landmark tirade that he only removed and apologized for when forced. And he immediately follows with this nom. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. These are in the article already:
 * Bannon, Race (August 13, 2003). "Aural Sex". web.archive.org. Archived from the original on December 30, 2010. Retrieved 2020-06-15. Bannon is an accomplished writer and likely expert on gay BDSM culture.
 * Karr, John F. (September 2003). "J.D. Slater - Mansize". Adult Video News. Archived from the original on April 6, 2010. Retrieved June 14, 2020. Karr is also an accomplished writer/expert on gay male porn, his column Karrnal Knowledge has been running for decades.
 * These speak about him in depth. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * they are all taken from his own web site. exactly like I said in the nomination reason. unreliable and not independent --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s not a reason to dismiss sourcing. As you’ve been told previously.And it’s his long abandoned website which pretty much addresses promotional concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: notability is solid, Bay Area Reporter is certainly a reliable source, and trivial details are not a reason to Delete. — H ip L ibrarianship  talk 03:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:DELAFD It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome. (last AfD ended June 27, 2020). Even though WP:PORNBIO has been depreciated - this subject passes WP:N for other reasons- like coverage in the Bay Area Reporter which has been a notable publication since 1971 and the many other publications which include the subject. - Myself I want to know more about his involvement with the Talking Heads, so I will say keep for now. FYI:The article needs a haircut, and it is a wall of text ATM. Someone should get the birthday right, at the moment it is not decided. Toughpigs is a careful !voter and he has also checked the subject.Lightburst (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * comment. It seems that this article will be kept. I hope that someone will re-write it in the form on an enciclopedia article. I would do it myself but due to my involvement i think it wouldn't be appropriated. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AlejandroLeloirRey I’m really sorry but this is clearly another inappropriate nomination. AfD is not cleanup, and there’s no deadline. You might think the article sucks and needs rewriting, but that’s not a legitimate reason for deletion. Please listen to what other editors are trying to tell you, for the sake of everyone’s morale and energy. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * saying "another" makes it sounds like it happens often when i have successfully nominated about 80% of the time. If u read carefully u shall see that the reasons for my nomination are not housecleaning or needs for re-writing this comment had nothing to do with the nomination reason which (once again) u can read above. Since clearly this article will be kept, even though there are no proper sources, at least I hope someone will write it in a form more suitable for an enciclopedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * AlejandroLeloirRey there are several suitable sources already in the article, as all voters so far have indicated. The fact that you cannot see that - or refuse to see that this is a mistaken nomination - indicates you should probably go and reread WP:RS before making any further nominations. I have sympathy for editors when they make a genuine mistake, when it’s unfair for other editors to pile on, but this is clearly not the case here where you seem unable to see why everyone is voting Keep. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the whole world said that it was the sun to spin around the earth... still the only one to say the opposite was the right one. anyway, I am not trying anymore to convince anybody but I can still hope that someone of good will will write this article in a more suitable stile. for the future nominations, there are a few, very few porn bios that should be check out and may be be nominated but they are few and I lost enthusiasm for housecleaning the porn bio so I suppose i will not be nominating soon again... I suppose... --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * it would be very good even if u would double check to see it there is still some article that shouldn't be there. I this I got deleted most of the not notable articles but a double check is always a good think. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It's time for you to stop. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * r u aware that the way u said it sounds very bad? just to say, I will stop when I will not find not notable articles among the porn bio. which I suspect is a very close moment, may be even now but definitely not because u say so. there were 30 useless not notable porn bios I got rid of with my nomination, someone could start showing some appreciation. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as per all above. Clearly notable topic which is already well sourced with reliable, independent sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep More than enough reliable in depth coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - big star, so to speak. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire, and per WP:TNT. The biography here appears to be mostly fictive. Most of the substantive sources appear to be self-promotional interviews that seem to be entirely unfactchecked. The problems literally begin with the article's first words: none of the cited sources identify the subject's birthname/real name, and a review of sources indicates that the supposed birthname is simply the first name the subject was credited under, in a field where pseudonyms are the norm. Slater claims that his band "with the Talking Heads when they first played at CBGB's", but that gig is well-documented, the Heads opened for the Ramones, and I have found no accounts of that night mentioning any other bands. Slater claims that his "first musical, Zoundz, was produced off-Broadway and later at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts", but the Lortel Archive (Internet Off Broadway Database) shows no production of that title (or even including the word in the title). The article is riddled with unsupported claims or unverifiable claims sourced to the subject himself, such as entering college at age 15 and attending a seriesof notable prep schools "on strait [sic] scholarships". This may be the most promotional, least credible BLP I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and is so atrocious it should be immediately removed from public view. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Your original research is duly noted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a point, and the article should be trimmed and edited down. If we can't verify Zoundz, for example, it would be good to investigate that some more. Unfortunately, I think this kind of thing happens when a notable article is put up for deletion twice in a short amount of time. People who believe that that the subject is notable based on the existing text are encouraged to go and find more sources, leading to good-faith refbombing. Voting TNT encourages more scrambling to find more sources, which at this point won't make the article any better. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * no, I am sorry but all those crappy sources where pulled out the first time the article was nominated (before there was hardly any source at all). I can't see any trimming possible as there are no reliable sources at all and no a signle relevant fact in the article is supported by a reasonable independent source. the only reasonable source is One-Handed History: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography but it doesn't contain any cover of the subject, it rather reports a few pages with the subject point of view about safe sex into porn. what I think of the other sources is in the reasons i gave for the nomination. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We can only go where reliable sources lead. I see zero evidence Slater has lied or deceived about his past, or even exaggerated facts to make his arguably under-reported life more interesting. I find the opposite is likely true, he doesn’t have ever seemed to take advantage of many opportunities for free publicity, doesn’t seem to have ever had a publicist, and never seems to have taken of Raging Stallion’s in-house team to hype his career or even his dozens of movie soundtracks.If we have evidence of mistakes, and not from original research but from reliable sourcing, then we can address them. For instance it’s common for a bigger band to have, or allow, multiple smaller acts to warm up the crowd before they perform. It’s completely unsurprising that they are not all documented, at all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * so, basically u r telling us that unless there are evidence that they are lying we should (or can) base bios entirely on what people say about them-self, like it happens in this case. ps when Hullaballoo Wolfowitz tells u stuff like he did facts check and there is no correspondence with the facts reported in the official media than u have that the subject of the bio has very much likely lied about that fact and if he lied about one thing... --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that unfortunately this discussion is tainted by the fact that it's happening on AfD. When Alejandro says "if he lied about one thing...", he's not talking about ensuring accuracy in the article; he's suggesting that everything is a lie and therefore the page should be deleted. When Gleeanon409 is defending these sources, it's also in service of keeping the article. I think that this conversation should happen, but it should happen on the article talk page after the AfD is over. That way, we can have a reasonable, good-faith discussion about what to include and what not to include. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2020 (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.