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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:56, 7 August 2020

J. D. Slater

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. @Gleeanon409: , @Johnpacklambert: , @Genericusername57: , @Phil Bridger: , @Zaathras: , @Gene93k: , @Acousmana: . 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)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Toughpigs: 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)[reply]

Look closer. How is it different? Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep: notability is solid, Bay Area Reporter is certainly a reliable source, and trivial details are not a reason to Delete. — HipLibrarianship ^talk 03:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88: 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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 *'''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. --[[User:AlejandroLeloirRey|AlejandroLeloirRey]] ([[User talk:AlejandroLeloirRey|talk]]) 09:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 ::[[User:AlejandroLeloirRey|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. [[User:Cardiffbear88|Cardiffbear88]] ([[User talk:Cardiffbear88|talk]]) 12:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|Cardiffbear88}} 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. 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. --[[User:AlejandroLeloirRey|AlejandroLeloirRey]] ([[User talk:AlejandroLeloirRey|talk]]) 13:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' as per all above. Clearly notable topic which is already well sourced with reliable, independent sources. [[User:Cardiffbear88|Cardiffbear88]] ([[User talk:Cardiffbear88|talk]]) 12:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)