Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. D. Slater

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Despite the amount of text, this is a poor discussion. We have basically three valid contributions: Gleeanon409, who has provided sources that they think support notability, and Zaathras and Gene93k, who think that these sources are insufficient. The rest of the discussion is just hot air: assertions of (non-)notability, personal attacks, walls of text that I haven't read, and a superseded nomination (it is no longer true that the article is unsourced). If this is renominated, the discussion should focus more closely whether the sources now cited establish notability or not. Sandstein 07:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Slater[edit]

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

J. D. Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

subject has not won any awards. bio reads like it was lifted from a porn studio bio page. article has not been improved in nearly 12 years and no references at all. I would call speedy deletion for this. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”do you have some sources I have missed?” This implies you found any! At present there are no sources. So yes, you have missed them all.
  • And an obvious merge target, if one were needed, would be the company he co-founded. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: are you here to personal attach me or to help to improve the article? just add the sources to the article and if they are good ones I will delete my nomination. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: I have nothing against the subject and I wouldn't mind to delete my nomination (as I have done before) if the subject is notable. still, i believe that no articles with no sources should ever be on wikipedia as wikipedia is a third part source, wikipedia should publish only things that other have published already. If we want wikipedia to be considered reliable and respectable we shouldn't allow articles with no sources to be here for decades. Such an article would never be accepted today and the only reason why this one is here is that it was published ages ago. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: by the way, Raging Stallion Studios article seems to suffer the very same lack of sources so we should find some sources for that one too. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m working to incorporate the rather lengthy interview with him, then to incorporate some of the dozen+ book leads I unearthed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’ve found, and am working to incorporate five interviews done with Slater. Additionally I have well over a dozen book leads, although some are more about male pin-up photography. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: I have found some books also but only male photography or books which mention him there fore not of any use. Please, also remember that interviews do not prove notability, so we need to find something different also.when you are done adding the sources you found let us know, if the sources are enough to prove notability I will dellete my nomination. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: I gave a look to what you are doing. I am touched by your effort but what you are doing is all wrong. you took a few interviews he gave (the sourcing is his own website reporting the interview... not reliable at all) and reported what he said considering it true. what a person says in an interview is not always true so, unless the interview is on a paper with very high reputation, this is why we need second sources. finally you report a lot of things that are of no interest on an eciclopedia. so many details just to fill up a page and make it look longer and more important. I give you and advice, stop including this useless interviews and concentrate on the books, if you can find also only one book (a good one) that dedicate one entire chapter to the subject it might be enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interviews are undoubtedly considered reliable. A person is considered an expert on themselves, unless you have proof they regularly lie we accept their word on most every issue. Most sources get their content by conducting interviews.
  • The content being added is in line with what a WP:Good article would have, much more than dry bare facts.
  • The interviews are archived on his former website. Do you think he fabricated them? What is your reason to believe that? Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: look, I was in your position when I started to contribute to wikipedia. Unfortunately most of the things you say are wrong. Here is not important mine or your opinion but what wikipedia's community decided in the guidelines. Here you find what an article needs to be considered notable GNG, or here WP:BIO for bio. This is what you must fulfill. Here it explains you that anything self published in considered unreliable WP:USESPS (so you should find the original articles not those reported in his web sites where he might have made some changing). here it tells you what is a reliable source:WP:RS. Interviews can be used for a few fat checking but they do not prove notability. the fact itself that something is only on interview and no secondary sources report it tells you that that thing is either too new(not this case) or marginally (not important). if you want to report a single fact he told in an interview is fine but you can not rely only on interviews and as I have already said they do not prove notability. concentrate on books or, at least, very important papers. for porn the best web sites for sourcing are https://avn.com/ and https://www.xbiz.com/ but you might find other websites also. if you want you can check what i did for Carlo Masi to have a clue of what is considered an article with good sources.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: I am going to tell you one by one what it is wrong with the sources, so you can decide what to do with each one. 1) this is an interview, if the article is not deleted we can find the original interview on AVN.com, still is an interview so it doesn't prove notability (the most important thing here) and it's use is controversial. you might take a bit of information from here, but just a couple of small things. 2) it's another interview but with along introduction so you might take something from the introduction but no more than this, you have already used an interview. I have strong doubts about the website: gaypornspace.com, mostly will tell you it is unreliable and I believe that too. 3) very same article of 2. 4) i don't know the website: outpersonals.com but it is selfpublished so not usable. 5) it is not about the subject which is not even mentioned. 6) another interview on another unreliable website: www.centurionpicturesxxx.com. 7)another interview form outpersonals.com. 8 and 9) prizes list. so far there is not one single thing pointing toward notability. one thing you might wanna try to do is to find out when those interviews were published to prove that he was covered by media for years but considering that those are unknown websites i doubt anyone would accept his thesis, I would say no. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: one last thing. I understand your frustration. Keep in mind that my article about Carlo Masi was rejected tree times and was accepted only here on AFD (I asked to nominate it). Someone thought that the sourcing did not prove notability: vanityfair, a biography written by one of the most important italian writes, articles on the most prestigious italian news papers, his bio in 2 different books of the most important porn actors and hundreds of articles from all around the world. consider that I used more than 60 different reliable sources for that articles. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. These are not self-published, like a blog might be, but more technically self-reported, re-produced. There remains zero proof they are false.
  • Interviews are just as valid for notability as anything else.
  • Once I’m done with the interviews I’ll move onto other websites and books. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. gnu57 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gleeanon409: look, I told you what I told you because I can see you wanna save this article and I told you what you really need to do to save it. I told you that I could find the original interviews so the problem with the interviews is not that they are reproduced but that they are interviews (first sources) and not on relevant papers/web sites. the only one which is auto-published is outpersonals.com. I told you that the use of interviews as a source is mostly controversial and allowed in specific cases and they rarely have a role into proving notability. The point is, if someone did something notable someone other them them-self should have written something about it. if you take a little time to read the links i gave you, you shall see these information are correct. when you say something, you can't say it is true because nobody has a prove that it is false. this is not a valid defense of what you say. wikipedia takes things as true when they are published on a reliable source. do you want to safe this article? find a good secondary source that extensively covers the subject. i tried to find it and i did not succeed but i might have missed something that you might find. stop wasting time writing any single irrelevant detail you find on interviews and concentrate on the only thing that it really matters: good second and third sources. find an important book about the subject, or which at least has one chapter about the subject. Find articles on respected papers that speak about the subject, do not waste time analyzing web sites like www.centurionpicturesxxx.com or outpersonals.com.
  • @Gleeanon409: I just read again what you recently wrote in this article. the article now reads as a promotional bio based on interviews. most of the things you wrote are unimportant and should not be on wikipedia. I advice you once more to reed other porn stars bio and you shall see that they are extremely dry. nobody needs to know his cat's name or how tall his father was. for the very last time, do not waste your time on this but focus on finding stuff that proves notability GNG (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list) and WP:BIO (People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]).--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure you mean well, my previous answers still stand so I see no reason to repeat myself. I have probably forty more sources to go through and will add them accordingly.
p.s. Slater doesn’t have a cat. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment So far a lot of nothing has been added to the sources. Moreover, the article now is a complete mess. Basically it is a celebrative article that summarize what he says about him self on interviews. the interviews are not on important papers or magazines so themselves do not prove notability (may be they can be used to prove one single fact. May be. But definitely not notability). I went trough every single article and there is not one single pointing toward notability. plus, many articles are taken from his personal page or they are simply the advertising page of a film he did or directed or pages with he winners of some prize... Finally, there is more than one article where his name does not even appear. I can't really see where notability should come from with this sourcing. moreover, for someone who is supposedly known also as a soundtrack composer I would expect to easily find a lot of good sources.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your judgement on sourcing has some blank spots I’m afraid. First you weren’t able to find any, now out of the dozens so far you insist that none are notable. John F Carr, and Race Bannon are both well respected journalists and writers, especially within the gay BDSM and porn world’s, both their articles were run by AVN, which you cite as a preferred source.
  • Your understanding of how the music industry is also lacking. Unless one hires a publicity agent to push for coverage and interviews out of the hundreds and thousands of releases, you just are not likely to get any. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, of course, when I say I can't find any I mean any that make any difference to prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, meets GNG, as co-owner of the world’s largest gay erotica company this should be obvious to all. Nom either didn’t look, or willfully ignored dozens of available sources, then tried to invent that interviews don’t count. In addition to the ones already on the article I’m looking through the following:
  • Escoffier, Jeffrey (2010-10-19). Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-7988-5.</ref>
  • Fritscher, Jack (2008). Gay San Francisco: Eyewitness Drummer : a Memoir of the Sex, Art, Salon, Pop Culture War, and Gay History of Drummer Magazine, the Titanic 1970s to 1999. Palm Drive Publishing. ISBN 978-1-890834-39-5.</ref>
  • Fritscher, Jack (1994). Mapplethorpe: Assault with a Deadly Camera : a Pop Culture Memoir, an Outlaw Reminiscence. Hastings House. ISBN 978-0-8038-9362-7.</ref>
  • Taylor, Kent (2014). Hustle. Bruno Gmunder Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-86787-673-5.</ref>
  • OutWeek. Outweek Publishing Corporation. 1991-05-22.</ref>
  • Raging Stallion: Magnum. Gmünder. 2008. ISBN 978-3-86787-009-2.</ref>
  • Weinberg, Jonathan (2019). Pier Groups: Art and Sex Along the New York Waterfront. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-08217-2.</ref>
  • Zachary, Logan (2012-05-01). Calendar Boys. Bold Strokes Books Inc. ISBN 978-1-60282-705-9.</ref>
  • Freeman, Paul (2009). Outback Currawong Creek. Paul Freeman Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9806675-0-9.</ref>
  • Fritscher, Jack (2017-06-20). Gay Pioneers: How Drummer Magazine Shaped Gay Popular Culture 1965-1999. Palm Drive Publishing. ISBN 978-1-890834-17-3.</ref>
  • Glover, Michael (2019-11-26). Thrust: A Spasmodic Pictorial History of the Codpiece in Art. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-64423-024-4.</ref>
  • Hart, Jack (1998). Gay Sex: A Manual for Men who Love Men. Alyson Books. ISBN 978-1-55583-468-5.</ref>
  • Dragon, Ray (2006). Real Men. Bruno Gmunder Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-86187-991-6.</ref>
  • Bjorn, Kristen (2008-07-31). Men of the World. Bruno Gmunder Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-86787-000-9.</ref>
  • Skee, Mickey (1998). The Films of Ken Ryker. Companion Press. ISBN 978-1-889138-08-4.</ref>
  • Lim, Gerrie (2006-05-01). In Lust We Trust: Adventures in Adult Cinema. Monsoon Books. ISBN 978-981-4358-12-5.</ref>
  • Kinnick, Dave (1993). Sorry I Asked: Intimate Interviews with Gay Porn's Rank and File. Masquerade Books. ISBN 978-1-56333-090-2.</ref>
  • Suresha, Ron (August 2009). Bears on Bears: Interviews and Discussions. Lethe Press. ISBN 978-1-59021-244-8.</ref>
  • Boyd, Nan Alamilla (2005-04-13). Wide-Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24474-0.</ref>
  • Lehman, Peter (2006). Pornography: Film and Culture. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-3871-6.</ref>
  • Darkholme, Van (2008). Male Bondage. Gmünder. ISBN 978-3-86187-909-1.</ref>
  • Burger, John R. (2020-03-24). One-Handed Histories: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-95258-9.</ref>
  • Taylor, Kent (2009). Raging Stallion: to the Last Man. Gmünder. ISBN 978-3-86787-021-4.</ref>
  • Hara, Scott O' (2014-04-04). Rarely Pure and Never Simple: Selected Essays of Scott O'Hara. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-79006-8.</ref>
  • Most of these are not available online so will be slower to access them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interview comments generally don't count towards WP:GNG because they aren't independent of the subject. Of the book sources listed above:
    1. Jeffrey Escoffier is a good source for information about pornographic actors, but the book includes only the one quote from Mr. Slater: Director J. D. Slater, who adopted the laissez-faire approach, said .... This is trivial coverage.
    2. Gay San Francisco is a self-published memoir by Jack Fritscher. (He and his partner founded Palm Drive Publishing as a vehicle for his books.) He namedrops Mr. Slater in the dedication; Mr. Slater's name also appears in the title of some Drummer (magazine) articles cited in the bibliography. This is trivial coverage.
    3. Mapplethorpe is another Fritscher memoir, originally self-published and now print-on-demand. The text is available online: here are allegations about Mr. Slater's personal relationships, here and here are passing mentions. None of this can support a BLP.
    4. Hustle is a book of pornographic photographs by Kent Taylor; according to the "About the Author" blurb, Mr. Taylor is the vice president of Mr. Slater's pornography company. I have found no indication that Mr. Slater has any other involvement with the book.
    5. Outweek is a namedrop in someone else's obituary. This is trivial coverage.
    6. Raging Stallion: Magnum is another Kent Taylor photobook; same deal as Hustle.
    7. Pier Groups: Art and Sex Along the New York Waterfront: I couldn't find this edition, but I did find an earlier version of the same text. It contains a passing mention of a photograph of Mr. Slater: the photographer Stanley Stellar ran into his colleague Peter Hujar during a photo shoot on Pier 46 in 1981. Hujar allowed Stellar to photograph him having sex in the background of a picture of the half-naked porn star J.D. Slater leaning against a doorway alongside a Keith Haring grafitti. This is trivial coverage.
    8. Calendar Boys is another pornographic photobook. I don't know what the connection is to Mr. Slater.
    9. Outback Currawong Creek is a self-published pornographic photobook. Again, no apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
    10. Gay Pioneers is another self-published Jack Fritscher memoir. It seems very similar to Gay San Francisco, and likewise namedrops Mr. Slater only in the dedication and bibliography sections.[1]. This is trivial coverage.
    11. Thrust: A Spasmodic Pictorial History of the Codpiece in Art does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
    12. Gay Sex: A Manual for Men who Love Men does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
    13. Real Men is a pornographic photobook by Ray Dragon. No apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
    14. Men of the World is a pornographic photobook. No apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
    15. The Films of Ken Ryker is a pornographic photobook. The book description states that it also contains interviews with Mr. Ryker's associates, which I suppose might possibly include Mr. Slater.
    16. In Lust We Trust does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
    17. Sorry I asked : intimate interviews with gay porn's rank and file. I suppose it might include an interview with Mr. Slater, but I have found no indication of this.
    18. Bears on Bears: Interviews and Discussions does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
    19. Wide-Open Town does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
    20. Pornography: Film and Culture does not mention Mr. Slater at all.
    21. Male Bondage is a pornographic photobook. No apparent connection to Mr. Slater.
    22. One-Handed Histories: The Eroto-Politics of Gay Male Video Pornography does actually mention Mr. Slater: it states that his films include high-risk sexual activity. I suppose that this is coverage of a sort.
    23. Raging Stallion: To the Last Man is another Kent Taylor pornographic photobook.
    24. Rarely Pure and Never Simple is a posthumously published collection of personal/autobiographical essays by Scott O'Hara.
  • Out of all of these, the only potentially useful source is the Burger One-Handed Histories book. Cheers, gnu57 04:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but even so (needs to ce cheked), only one book with a short coverage (not even a chapter) is not enough to prove notoriety. anyhow, I think that if the article survives it will need a major mork to make it accetable. at the moment is a celebrative summary of a celebratory summary of his interviews and a collection of advertisements, mentions and things tightened by himself. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Gleeanon409's extensive efforts at improving citations. The argument for deletion here is not that the topic is not notable enough, but that the article is not well cited enough, and someone is working to fix that. Remember people, WP:DINC. I see a lot of that today. --Micky (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you telling us to keep it as a prize for "someone" effort?. I appreciate the effort that Gleeanon409 is putting into this article but it is the article that has to be notable not the effort. The reason why the article is under examination is that it's notability is not proved by the current sourcing. I extensively explained what kind of sourcing we need to prove notability and i was repetitively ignored. the sourcing now is a long list of nothing. Hopefully something will come out from the books. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’m working through the books and other sourcing, will post when I’m done but it will definitely be about a week. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • if someone experienced tells me that it is possible, I would withdraw my nomination and wait something like one month, if in one month I don't see real changes I would nominate it again. @Gleeanon409: the article itself, at the moment, is a mess and more than half of it needs to be deleted. As I told you more than once it is pointless to add 1 MLN useless information just to have in the sourcing one more interview or one more article with a passing mention. Still, if you need more time, and it is technically possible for me to withdraw my nomination to nominate it again (if still needed) in one month, I am fine with it. but please, try to involve someone experienced to help you out. I will be happy to give you advice and help you but you need to listen to other people. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Genericusername57: I trust your opinion very much, I gave a fast look on internet for "One-Handed Histories book" and this is what i have found: https://books.google.it/books?id=ltbYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=Burger+One-Handed+Histories+book&source=bl&ots=k7SUHT84dB&sig=ACfU3U1_E3qVZipynTkrZVZngEq62IaBoQ&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjM1_Gmj5DqAhUdThUIHTZ7BaUQ6AEwBnoECA8QAQ#v=onepage&q=Slater&f=false from this it is pretty obvious that the subject only has a couple of mentions, he is not the subject of the book or of a chapter and his role in the book is marginal. Do you believe I should withdraw my nomination to give Gleeanon409 more time to go through those books or you have checked them all already? thank you for your help. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the protagonists here agree with this being moved to draft space where it can be developed and sourced before being moved back to main space? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don’t see a reason to do so. If this were at draft it would be accepted already; obviously notable person who never hired a press agent but has been mentioned across media for decades. Those who don’t care for the interviews will likely never be satisfied. But more are on the way, apparently how directors were covered in the gay press back then. And these are just the ones I’ve found. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then can you, rather than give us a long list including interviews, unreliable sources and passing mentions, identify just a few independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of Slater, per WP:THREE? It is well established that interviews are not independent and AVN is not reliable, so don't include them. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Phil Bridger:, Once I’ve had a chance to see all the sources I’d be happy to do so. I have about twelve books to go, at least a few are promising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleeanon409 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, AVN has editorial oversight, is there a discussion you could link as to it being blankety unreliable? If I had known that I would never have used them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Gleeanon409: what you don't get is that keeping adding article to the sources where the subject name appears one time or articles which are shorter than this comment makes the sources look very bad and if you will ever find something good enough to prove notability people might simply miss it because you killed it putting it in the middle of useless sources. AVN and Xbiz are reliable to prove things, it is questionable if they can prove notability. Even so, I once more again went through all the sources you added and gave a closer look to the AVN and Xbiz ones. seriously? they are either articles where the subject is barely mentioned once, lists of the winners of some porn prizes (porn prizes do not prove notability) and short description for his movies (very much likely advertising). Some of this sources are repeated (some one repeat the same source into different line to make the source list look longer). There are 3 articles where the subject is mentioned more than one time:
-https://web.archive.org/web/20100406001345/http://www.jdslater.com/jdslateravn.html (this one is on his own page but there is no trace of the original article, I searched on wayback machine and I couldn't find it.)
-https://avn.com/business/articles/gay/bijou-theater-to-spotlight-j-d-slater-in-september-54435.html (I think you can see yourself that this is not long enough to be called a cover of the subject)
-https://avn.com/business/articles/gay/Raging-Stallion-s-JD-Slater-Releases-New-Music-CD-355915.html (once again it is so short that can not prove much)
you are just not listening and you keep adding to the sources anything on internet that contains the subject's name and this is pretty much the opposite of what we need. We need two or three good sources(books about the subject, not books containing his name or independent, reliable and extended articles about the subject in a long period of time on main stream media (like national news papers). Your behavior makes everyone waste a lot of time. You make us go through a long list of nothing hopping that we will give up and make you have in in you in your way. In my country this is called obstructionism. Please, stop and try to be more collaborative. We offered you more time to go through your sources and learn what a good source is but you rejected our offer. Enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been rude and dismissive, and violated WP:AGF repeatedly, you can stop now. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gleeanon409: if you are talking to me, please ping me or I might just miss your comment. I have AGF the first 10 times I spoke to you, and as a prove of that I always offered you my help in any way possible. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A metric ton of inflation from either bad sources or brief mentions. This is the kind of citation overkill one does to prop up non-notable biographies, esp in niche industries like porn. Zaathras (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 41 citations and only one of them, the GayVN Hall of Fame article, is an even remotely plausible secondary source with non-trivial coverage. Lots of notability claims, but most refer back to jdslater.com. The subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSICBIO and any other relevant SNG. As a final note, porn filmographies are generally discouraged, and the low-information citations for each film hurt the article rather than help it. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relative to the kind of non-notable popular culture crap that somehow never gets deleted (including non-notable female porn actress articles) this is actually not so bad. If an editor is committing to improving the sourcing give them the time they need. Acousmana (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Acousmana: just to let you know, I am working to delete all the crap articles in the gay porn category, it takes some amount of work but it needed to be done. I don't nominate articles about dead people because i don't feel right about it. So, if you find crap articles just make some research to see if you can't find anything to prove notability and if you can go ahead and nominate it... let's get rid of the crap. if we want wikipedia to be considered reliable we need to get rid of anything that is not notable. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Acousmana: This rationale is an appeal to WP:other crap exists. Since the Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines were tightened a year ago, there has been a general housecleaning involving both male and female porn performers. Yes, an editor is working to save the article, but the editor has bombarded it with dozens of low-quality citations that still haven't supported claims of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene93k:,@AlejandroLeloirRey: What is the current status of AVN as an RS across all adult industry related content? Can you point me to said "tightening" of notability and sourcing guidelines, whatever discussion there was, missed that, am interested. Thanks. Acousmana (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acousmana: Since WP:PORNBIO has been deprecated all the biography have to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:BASIC, the requests for notability in these guidelines are much tighter than those in pornbio. AVN is reliable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Sources) but interviews do not count to prove notability and here all the sources on avn are either mere mentions of the subject or interviews or articles too short to prove anything. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Acousmana: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Industry/trade sources, Adult Video News is "generally reliable for adult industry news and movie reviews, though it does not indicate when an article is a press release." However, practical understanding here is that AVN is a promotional source. If an article shows any traits of being a press release, it probably is one. AVN's reliability was taken into account when the WP:PORNBIO secondary notability guideline was deprecated in March 2019. Porn performers no longer get a pass from the requirement for good secondary sources as proof of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • still delete I nominated this article but I am posting my opinion again as the article has changed a lot in this two weeks. this article had more than 12 years to be fixed and now it had another two more weeks. I think that the changing made in these two weeks have made this article worst. now it is a long boast based on what he said about himself, filled up with a ridiculously amount of insignificant details. But here the real point is that there is not even one single source that can prove even a bit of notability. we have an incredibly long list or irrelevant articles where his name appears only one time at the end along with other names, ridiculous filmographies of no importance, lists of porn awards nominees and articles where his name doesn't appear at all. Are we keeping any single article only because "who knows, may be one day someone can improve it and find a source to prove a notability that no one can see"?. if so let me know because i would like to write an article about my dogs, who knows one daya significant source might pop out. plus, here above all the books where the subject name appears have been discussed and in the source now there is any single article containing his name but still nothing pointing toward notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I’m actively ignoring the walls of text from nom, which have fully derailed meaningful discussion. But @Phil Bridger: asked for THREE reliable sources to confer notability. It takes days to get book sources copies so I’ll post these now:
    • 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 years.

[Both the above are feature-length articles about Slater]

    • Burger, John Robert (1995). "AIDS and the Trade". One-handed histories : the eroto-politics of gay male video pornography. New York: The Haworth Press. pp. 78–83. ISBN 978-1-315-86373-3. OCLC 1148475934.
      • This delves into Slater’s thinking and dealings on safer-sex practices as an actor and director. Haworth Press is well respected.
  • I hope this helps! Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you keep repeting yourself. First source: it would be of some (little) use if it wasn't from his own website. Second source: it's again from his own web site and is an interview. Third source: his name appears in less than 3 pages in a whole book, so no an estensive one, which after what you say are about his thinking about safe sex, so it is not even a cover of the subject. if you need more time I think it would be best to move this on your draft page and when you are done, if you proved notability, we can move it back. but you have already said no to this offer. I am sorry but I can't sign in now, I am AlejandroLeloirRey --87.11.211.120 (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your inaccurate disparaging comments are, again, noted. That the two articles are archived at his former website is irrelevant, of course he links them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disparaging? lol. Being on his own website he could have manipulated the articles. I honestly don't think he did but still the fact that they are taken from his web site makes them unreliable. Plus, one is an interview and you were told by different contributors that interviews do not prove notability. how many times do you need to be told?. if the interview was on The New Yorker than maybe it was different. (I am AlejandroLeloirRey) --87.11.211.120 (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are again violating WP:AGF by assuming because his former website archived the articles he also changed them. That’s ridiculous. And they are both articles. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
have you ever even read WP:AGf? it says we must assume that the editors of articles are in good faith if they make any mistake not that the subject was in good faith when he reported a fact about himself on his own media. my engish is not very good. but still, is good enough to recognize an interview and one of them is an interview(I am AlejandroLeloirRey)--87.11.211.120 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
, you may have missed the points at the top:
  • Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
    If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • exactly, "people who work on the project" I spoke about J. D. Slater and as far as I know he is not working on his own bio here. I said that he might have changed the articles some how before publishing it on his own webs site. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer. Nom started with 1.) subject has not won any awards; although porn awards are somewhat disregarded on Wikipedia, Slater has won both the top tier (Hall of Fame) awards easily seen here, and here, which should have been a first stop for someone “cleaning up” non-notable gay porn bios. 2.) They then cite basic clean-up issues violating Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. 3.) Calls for Speedy deletion. 4.) Never considers merging to Raging Stallion Studios, of which the subject is a co-founder and is the world’s largest gay porn production company.
    Within a few hours I identified 40+ potential sources and started improving the article. Nom, who has !voted twice, persists in disparaging every step of the way to where I felt bullied and harassed.
    Nom has repeatedly alleged that on the article subject’s *former* website he altered archived press articles, and interviews. It’s fairly obvious they have no intention of accepting my work as valid and in good faith.
    I still have more leads to run down, and book sources to secure, I will add them as they come in. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the reason why we all agree on deleting the article is that notability has not been proved. this is it. when we talk about cleaning up we mean deleting all the not notable porn actors that are on wikipedia because of deprecated rules. answer to 4) weird, because actually I offered you my help many times, I explained you in details what we needed to prove notability and I went through any single source you added explaining you exactly what was wrong with it and I told you more than once I was ready to withdraw my nomination the moment we found a source that proved notability. you have been offered more time but from one hand you refuse to move this article on your draft to work on it as long as you need and from the other hand you gave as a long list (another one) of books and Gene93k eplained you exactly why each of those books could not be used which makes look giving you more time a waste of time and energies. one last ting, speaking of helping you, almost as soon as you started working on the article I told you that you were going toward the wrong direction filling it up with useless info and trivial sources you refused to listen and judging by the delete comment (they tell what I told you than) the article had mine were very good advice. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t Gene93k who gave a flawed assessment of books they haven’t read ... and here again you’re arguing against using reliable sources you yourself couldn’t find, denied existed, disputed and condemned, etc., really it’s exhausting dealing with your walls of texts and harassment. Your “help” is keeping a healthy discussion from even taking place. This is now a good article despite your non-existent “help” and “offers of guidance”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._D._Slater&oldid=971183254"