Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Judson


 * 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. Despite some disagreement, a consensus feels that the sources provided by GoldenAgeFan are suitable to show notability. If an individual could add to article, that would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tom Judson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources came out from an independent research and none are in the article. the subject doesn't appear to be notable AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 15:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 15:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  21:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google news searches show numerous articles about this person, both as Tom Judson and as Gus Mattox.  The article is poorly referenced and quite incomplete (leaving out his regular role in a TV series, for example, but the deletion nomination seems to have been made in haste. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice, why don't you share with us these wonderful sources. I couldn't find any convincing sources that actually proved notoriety but i might have missed something. if you found any reliable sources which establish notoriety please share them with us so if u don't want to add them yourself someone else can do it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a good amount of sources out there (ranging from the NY Times to gay and theater websites/publications) covering Judson and his projects, ranging from his relatively short, but successful porn career, his one man shows (Canned Ham, The Tom Judson Show, and Nature Boy), his house flipping side job, and Charles Busch's musical director. So at the very least, meets the GNG and those sources could be used to flesh out the article. A sampling of them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * none of them can be considered in any way an independent, in-depth cover of the subject. they are all just passing mentions or promotional stuff and this is the reason why those sources are not in the article yet... I would like to see any independent, reliable, extended cover of the subject... 10 lines is not extended. unfortunately here most of the times the only thing that matters is how many vote u had even though those votes are not supported by any fact. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those looked like they were done by someone connected to him (hence independent), most of those sources I cited cover him and/or his works to non-trivial degree and none them look like press releases to me (something that is promotional). It doesn't matter that they haven't been put in the article yet or the state of the article, it's just that they exist. See WP:NEXIST. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that there were only "10 lines" of coverage in the said coverage linked above. I'd love to know what you think makes those sources unreliable or unsuitable, especially the NY Times one (widely considered to be generally a reliable source here on wikipedia). No one else so far seems to agree with your assessment that Judson isn't notable enough to vote delete and there is almost always a delete vote or two on anything porn related (although Judson has coverage relating to others things). The closing Wikipedia admin also makes a call on the arguments and evidence provided, so it takes more than just one or more adamant person(s) to decide whether an article is kept or deleted. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Looked at the first three sources provided by above and didn't need to see the rest or conduct a BEFORE. Significant coverage in reliable sources are met. Subject passes WP:GNG, if nothing else. No SNG's needed to keep this article. Don't care what the notable subject does or how they became notable. Once criteria is met they can receive an article for inclusion.. -- A Rose Wolf  ( Talk ) 19:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above. Meets WP:GNG. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with other keep voters. This passes WP:GNG. It needs to update with references though. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 12:01, 13 January 2021 (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.