Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/J.P. Sloane

Self-published material
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 .

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. J.P. Sloane (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point being made was that the bar for self-publishing material is very low, so that having self-published material does not add to notability. For information on notability of books, see WP:BK. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

J.P. Sloane on Angel Awards
Thank you Banje boi for your kind advice. It is true that this is written from a publicist prospective and not as a encyclopedic thesis. I am a novice at this sort of thing which is obvious. The reason I submitted this was because several people were asking me why I was not in Wikipedia other members of my family are. No one in my circle is astute in the finer points of the Wiki-experience; therefore, in my vast ignorance of such matters, I just clumsily did a copy and paste. I realize that this seems “self-serving” and as a creature of the entertainment genre, I will admit that this is part of the nature of the beast (the product being sold is one’s persona).

Strictly as a matter of record, I think I need to address a few comments that were made earlier. I waited until now because I hoped someone would have seen what may have been obvious to some and injected it into the debate. Sadly, no one did so I feel compelled to do so myself. To begin with, I will address the above critique when it stated, “…claim to any prominence whatsoever is obscure 'Angel Awards'.” Although lined through by someone, it must still be addressed. I am sure that the GLAD Awards (which are considered worthy, and justifiably so, to be part of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLAD) could be considered obscure by those outside of the Gay Community. The point being, the views of the gentleperson who postulated that the Angel Awards are obscure and, therefore, implying irrelevance is purely subjective. The list of recipients of the Angel Awards is prodigious to say the least. However, before we address that subject, it may serve us well to consider that celebrities, while competing for accolades, are vary cautious about lending their names and prestige to someone or something that is of questionable repute as that would do harm to their image; they do not need or want that kind of degrading publicity. There are many organizations who would love to align themselves with high profile people to undergird their shaky status, however, most people of celebrity status are not foolish enough to be used in that manner. That is what handlers, publicists and managers are for-- to protect the image and “product name” (if you will) from harm. Having said that, the obvious retort would be that Sloane, being self-serving as has been suggested above, could be justifiably correct. As a person who appears in public venues from time-to-time, I cannot deny that my image is just as important to me as anyone else in the public eye and that defending my awards is purely self-serving. Accordingly, let me move away from myself and focus on other inductees of the Angel Awards. One example would be the nemesis of decades of United States Presidents, Helen Thomas. Ms. Thomas has many admirers and detractors, but no one for a moment would think of her as someone who would willy-nilly lend her august stature as a world class journalistic icon to just any “obscure” fly-by-night organization which would only serve to demean all the wonderful years of her notable career. Ms. Helen Thomas is an Excellence in Media Angel Award recipient http://www.angelawards.com/helenthomas.html.

Tom Hanks, a two-time Academy Award winner, surely has no need to degrade this type of prestige by condescending himself to receive an “obscure” award that would demine all he has strived to accomplish! Tom Hanks is an Angel Award winner http://www.angelawards.com/tomhanks.html.

The late Fred Rogers, who shared his neighborhood for over thirty years on PBS stations around the country, surely did not need to align himself with questionable and “obscure” organizations, but “Mr. Rogers” was also proud to receive an Angel Award. http://www.angelawards.com/fredrogers.html

In the above discourse, when referring to the Xulon, the Christian self publishing house and Sloane’s Angel Award, it was stated, “That these books are self-published also raises further questions about the prominence of the Angel Awards…” I would submit to you that award-winning books should not be based so much by who published them but rather by its content.

Consider Diane Sawyer who, along with Sam Donaldson, hosted the popular ABC Network’s Primetime Live, would certainly have no need of receiving a non-notable, questionable and “obscure” award which could hurt her career. Yet at a Literary Awards show at Sardi's in New York City, Diane Sawyer was the proud recipient of a Literary Angel Award! http://www.angelawards.com/dianesawyer.html

I would humbly submit that as an Angel Award Winner, I am in good company.

Lastly, in another section, deleting me from Wikipedia, it was pointed that there is no date of birth given. Yes, I must admit that I too am a victim of the notorious affliction that is shared by many in the vanity industries. I have succumbed to the viral infection found in New York and Hollywood. I like to hide my age! While it is true that I began life in the Cenozoic era, I try to hide it as best as I can! (My age is really not hidden if you go to the Who’s Who website where the year of my birth is exposed for all to see! http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/JPSLOANE/ ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

J.P. Sloane, I would like to make the following points in response to this: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You have already been told how to demonstrate that the Angel Awards are prominent: "Prominence would require (i) significant third party coverage of the award, and/or (ii) that the award be conferred by a prominent professional organisation."
 * 2) Nothing in your lengthy screed demonstrates anything beyond the fact that you really really want this award to have meaning. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED! So pointing to a few recipients who are notable does not make the award itself notable (let alone make you notable by extension).
 * 3) Your defence of of your self-promotional article is becoming increasingly unseemly. Looking at your edit history, I see little activity that isn't self-promotion. It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that you are on Wikipedia almost solely to remind people that you exist.