Talk:David Slater

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

question about page "vandalism"

[edit]

I have noticed a significant amount of additions and deletions of content on this page (and this empty talk page). Much is about supposed personal history. My question is: are any of the previously referenced news stories true? And if so, what is the responsible response?

I want Slater to have a clean slate as much as the next guy. I want a clean slate for many of my mistakes as well. I also want this page to follow Wikipedia BLP standards. However, if any of the news stories are true -- and associated with the same person -- why do they all (the legitimate ones) get either deleted with no editor comment or with a "vandalism" claim?

Can this topic get discussed on this page in a way that honors Wikipedia standards and doesn't all get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdmurphy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim, this is David Slater. I cannot recall if we have met or not, though we have many mutual friends I'm sure. I saw your question. I am the one who has been deleting the negative stories. All of that is in the past and has been dealt with. But I actually don't even want a Wikipedia page; I didn't create it and don't know who did. I've been trying to figure out how to get it deleted but I'm not even sure if that's possible. But as long as it's on here, I'm simply trying to keep it as a career page and nothing personal.
I wanted you to know that I saw your question, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have of me. I sent you this message on Facebook also. I hope you're well. 2600:1700:591:20A0:102D:1919:5AC:D4D2 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing Wikipedia's standards for notability, I've concluded that in spite of your short-lived national (U.S.) attention in the late 1980s and your continued use of your musical talent, albeit with a more regional focus, you don't seem to meet the notability standards. (If you were the internationally known U.K. photographer David J Slater, that would be different.) Therefore, as you can see below and at the top of your page, I'm nominating this page for deletion using Wikipedia's deletion process. Unless someone objects and deletes the deletion proposal tag at the top of the page, this page could be deleted as early as seven days from now.
btw, if you click on the "View History" link for this page, it references David75104 as the original creator (in 2006) and subsequent editor of the page. You might not remember or someone might have been purporting to be you, but from the history log, David75104 claims to be you. Dns75204 might also be you or someone purporting to be you.
See this page for Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies on posting or editing a page about yourself. Jimdmurphy (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. If you, David Slater, ever see this message, I'd like to let you know I expanded the article. I hope I have presented things in a due and neutral fashion. Personally, given our notability guidelines, I think you clearly pass the mark and Jimdmurphy (talk · contribs) did not do an extensive search for sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page Nominated for Deletion

[edit]

In reviewing the "vandalism" issue above, I noticed that this David Slater doesn't seem to pass the Wikipedia standards for Notability. Therefore, this page has been nominated for deletion using the Wikipedia Proposed deletion (PROD) process. Jimdmurphy (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimdmurphy: I greatly expanded the page since your prod. He clearly passes WP:NMUSIC as a winner on Star Search, in addition to two albums on Capitol Records, a top-30 hit on Hot Country Songs, and the many sources I found which include several in-depth biographies and two reviews of his debut album. Keep in mind that notability is not temporary, and the coverage he got from 1987-89 should be more than enough to prove he's a notable musician. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I have removed the prod as there is at least a strong case to be made for his notability. Claims that his notability stopped in the 1980s overlook an Associated Press article focusing on him from 2002, one which ran not just in Tennessee where it might be argued to be "local", but in Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, Kansas, Indiana, California, Arizona, North Carolina. North Dakota, New Jersey, Louisiana, Michigan, and probably others. Those seeking deletion should take this through the Articles For Deletion process. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

criminal history

[edit]

A now-blocked editor has deleted a history of the subject's criminal convictions and replaced it with unsourced vagueries, claiming "misinformation". The contents seem fairly well sourced, so I am restoring them. If anyone can point to any misinformation as well as sources that provide contrast with the information we have, I suggest that they put it forward. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elliptical Reasoning: The source you had added for the 2006 conviction had the charges but not the conviction. I have not restored that source -- the conviction is already sourced in the next source in the paragraph. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler thanks for checking that. I think you may have misread the source (which was mainly about the 200_7_ charges, and also mentioned the 2006 conviction), but as long as the info is sourced that's good. However, @ToBeFree pointed out that since this is a BLP, discussion for consensus should take place before restoring removed material, even in cases that seem fairly clear cut like this. I created a thread at about the same time as you, so I'll delete mine and let's give it a little while to see if anyone shows up with a reason for exclusion of the material. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not purely about verifiability; even if the content is verifiable, it may be unduly weighted and WP:ONUS would apply. I'll trust NatGertler's judgement and question Dns75204's motivations based on what I've seem from them so far, for now. Having a consensus for addition of the material here if it should stay would be highly preferable, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should follow the consensus process Wikipedia always uses for these decisions, I'm not complaining. That said, I'd be dubious of anyone arguing that the subject's divorce wasn't due for inclusion in the 'personal life' section - except, possibly, the argument that that section shouldn't exist at all. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight does get tricky in the context of a very short section - adding a discussion of any major incident would be undue in the sense that it gets a disproportionately large share of the text, simply because there's no discussion of anything else. I wouldn't consider this a very good argument, on its own, against adding to an article. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(One obvious point I should point out is that the material removed in Special:Diff/1294955864 is unsourced, likely contains original research and should not be restored. This is not about whether that diff should be reverted but whether the material added by it is worth keeping.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the criminal history section (including the divorce material) until the consensus can be reached; folks were right to call me on the BLP aspect of restoration.
Having said that, I have not an inkling of doubt about whether at least some coverage of the criminal history is due. As I pointed out in a section above, the 2002 Associated Press article about the subject trying to rebuild after his time in jail was a nationwide story, carried in papers in at least 15 states from NJ to CA. The 2005 charges (which led to a 2006 conviction) were also on the national wire, although I've not seen it show up as many papers (haven't done a careful search).
I do question whether it qualifies as "Personal life". As he was convicted of for-money crimes in 2002 and 2006, and was at least charged in 2007 (I've not yet sought out whether there was another conviction), this (much as his ministering) seems closer to career than to personal life. (Obviously, the wife/kids/divorce material that was intermingled with it is personal life.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, all the information in personal life looks like it probably belongs in career - stopping music to get a job as a minister sounds pretty much definitionally career. The only information that's been in this article which is really 'personal life' is the divorce, which doesn't justify a section itself.
Tentatively I'd suggest the personal life section be removed and both the criminal activity and ministerial education/work be moved into the career section. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being married, having kids, and getting divorced are within the normal default for a "personal life" section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if we add those events to the article it would be appropriate for such a section. The fact that in 2001 he had two kids and was divorced sometime before 2007, though, is less relevant. Based on the level of notability (and associated level of detail in the article) I would argue we should include family information only if it is either current or is presented as a sequence of noteworthy events, neither of which is available in the sources currently referenced. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it should be a single section covering both his ministry and his criminal efforts, as they are too intertwined to separate. His first conviction was for stealing from parishoners; his 2007 charges were from stealing from a school which the church he was working for held its services in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, i don't think I misread the source you added. All it has to say about the credit card matter was "Last year, Slater was charged with credit card abuse and failure to pay fines and legal fees." Being charged is not being convicted. (I'm also not sure if that was part of the original story that the AP provided; looking for it now, I see the same basic article in other Texas papers, but they do not include the credit card-related charges.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dangit, that's my second basic reading failure in an hour. I'm going to stop editing for today... Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys for being as thorough, fair, and compliant with WP standards as possible. I don't think Mr. Slater has been trying to violate COI standards, I just think he's been ignorant of those standards all together and has struggled for years to get past his mistakes and focus on living and performing music regionally. I'm not a personal friend of his but have some mutual friends. I recently encouraged him to not "make any further changes yourself" but I think the desire to move on was too strong. :-( I think if he (or whoever purporting to be him) knew of the personal difficulty it would cause, the original page would have never been created. Jimdmurphy (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. Multiple attempts were made to inform him of conflict concerns on his talk page, but there is no proof that he even knew to look at that. However, he can still appeal the block; a note claiming ignorance, offering contrition, and promising not to edit the article directly but to bring his concerns to this talk page might go a long way.
Having said that, this is not David Slater's page, this is Wikipedia's page about David Slater. Our goals and his desires do not inherently match. As it was last in the article, there was no mention of the criminal history until deep into the page (which is not to say it won't get a mention in the intro and/or table of contents in the days to come.) We are not positing him as a criminal who happened to do some music. He might better serve himself by creating a web site about himself that people will go to first, and there he can put the light he chooses to on this part of his past, or skip it entirely. (Having said that, I'm not sure what the country music scene is like today, but there was a time when having an outlaw past gave one some cred.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nat, this is David Slater. I am just now discovering this talk page; I have never known how much of this works.
I posted a reply to another user a moment ago and I will paste it here for you to see. Thank you. ......
Hello, this is David Slater. I am the subject of this Wikipedia page. I've been reading over these comments and I do not know the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works but I would like to have this page deleted. I don't feel that I'm a notable figure any longer. I play music in a handful of Dallas area restaurants and that's all I'm doing with music now. My main concern with the edits I have made over the years to this page has been to keep it about the career and remove the hurtful information from the past that has nothing to do with my music. All of that is over and done with, and was handled appropriately and legally. There has been all kinds of misinformation posted on this page simply because it was in a newspaper somewhere. I have been amazed at how wrong the stories have been on several pertinent facts about my past. Those articles (and Wikipedia sentences) I have tried to delete because they are not true. Just today I noticed that for the first time my ex-wife's name and the names of my children were there, and facts about our divorce etc. That seems wholly inappropriate to me. I think all of this is just wrong. The people who sit behind computers and put these Wikipedia pages online for all to see don't know anything about my ex-wife's nervous breakdown and how she still struggles with the memory of this, or about my children who want to get on with their lives without having this old stuff coming up again and again. I don't know why there needs to be a Wikipedia page about someone who's only playing a few Dallas restaurants nowadays. I'm a nobody. Can someone help me with this? This all is very hurtful and it seems that people who have no business diving into all this keep adding negative information and so often incorrect information to a page about me, a page that I wish didn't even exist. I mean if it page is about music, that's fine. But when it becomes about a person's personal life, especially on a site where anybody can jump on there and add stuff, it's basically a gossip page. Is that what Wikipedia wants to be? I have thought about consulting an attorney about this and seeing if I can compel Wikipedia to remove the page. But again, I don't know much about this stuff. I appreciate any help here. 166.199.242.7 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
David:
The first thing that I'm going to suggest to you is to stop posting here for the moment, and use the account that you were using to appeal your block. Not signing in so that you can get around a block is against Wikipedia rules. You can see your block at the talk page for that account. Before you appeal, you should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for a guide on how to do that.
Having said that, if you weren't already blocked, you would be about to be now. Your statement here that you are considering getting an attorney to try to compel its removal is a legal threat, and policy is that people who make such threats are blocked until the threat is rescinded. I suggest rescinding it, and making a statement that you wish to do so part of your request to be unblocked.
There are ways to request that a page be deleted. The simplest of these (known as "prod") is no longer an option for this page. However, the more rigorous one, the Article For Deletion process, is still available. This puts the page up to a discussion as to whether you as a topic meet the requirements for having a Wikipedia page. Reading Wikipedia:Guide to deletion will help you get a sense of how that process works.
Be prepared for the fact that you may be disappointed in the results. Wikipedia tends to hold that true notability is not temporary. We have plenty of articles on long-forgotten authors who were big in their day. Discussions tend to give some weight to the desires of a living subject, but not as much as you might like.
And as I suggested before, you may want to get a website somewhere about yourself, one that you control. If you do so, be sure to let us know so that we can include it on this page as an external link, so that people who do come here can find you. We might even be able to use it as a source for correcting some of the information here. We couldn't use it as a source for controversial or boastful claims, but for things like the correct name of a school you attended, it would be fine.
I know this is not everything you want to hear, but I hope it will help you on the path to dealing with things. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
David, here's your Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dns75204 Go there to post this {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to get DNS75204 unblocked. Once that occurs, you should then be free to add to the discussion on this page -- not about deletion (which can be pursued separately) -- about seeking consensus about what pieces of the published news stories about your past should be included in this Wikipedia page about you. These guys are trying to take published historically verifiable information and correctly place it on a Wikipedia page. They are not trying to dig up dirt to be vindictive, but to accurately and consistently curate published information about a living person who has had national recognition in the past. Jimdmurphy (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David Slater,

Thank you very much for the detailed assurances and clarifications made in response to these messages, and welcome back.
If, beyond current discussion topics, or after a discussion seems to have ended with consensus for such changes, you'd like to suggest new changes, please click the "request corrections" link in the orange box at the top of this page here.

One reason why I believed you might be acting on behalf of who turns out to be yourself is that you talked about yourself in third person in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1294949016.

Please make sure you're logged in for all edits to Wikipedia that are related to yourself. You are not strictly required to login for edits completely unrelated, as the community values and grants privacy, but you are of course encouraged to stay logged in at all times. Details about this can be found in our policy against sockpuppetry. Strictly speaking, the talk page messages sent to this page here while blocked are block evasion and could be removed, but I see no point in doing so in this specific case here.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts I shared with Mr. Slater to help him understand the issues at hand. I think it would be helpful for more living persons and others with COI to comprehend the responsibilities inherent in the powerful nature of Wikipedia's community editable encyclopedia:
Wikipedia is unique in that it combines 1) a web-based compendium of published "facts" about millions of subjects, and 2) it is freely editable by anyone in the world. These two qualities makes it a profoundly powerful tool to disseminate information. But, that requires a thorough set of policies and a community of committed editors (and even bots) to keep it "clean".
Any of us -- you, me, the guys on the Talk page -- are required to follow those guidelines if we hop on and make edits.
The challenge is that you, in a sense, walked into the library and started tearing out pages of history books that recorded "facts" that you didn't like -- without following the standards for making "appeals".
Another challenge is that the Wikipedia page is not your page. It, just like the news articles (with all their potential inaccuracies), is a page "about" you. The Talk page -- even though you didn't know -- was always the place for you to appeal the accuracy or appropriateness of information about you -- a living person.
Jimdmurphy (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nat , I now realize that that was me making that edit before realizing I wasn't logged in. I had not logged in to Wikipedia in a while and didn't realize my browser was not logged in. I point this out so that it will be understood this was not a "paid advocate." It was me, just not logged in. Dns75204 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(All good. No worries about that.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving toward consensus

[edit]

The discussion has gone quiet, yet at the moment the state of the article is what it is only awaiting consensus one way or the other. I have made my view for inclusion clear and specific. The subject, while not explaining his view in Wikipedia terms (unsurprising for a neophyte) has made it clear through his actions and statements which goal he calls for (although deletion is a separate consideration.) @ToBeFree, Jimdmurphy, and Elliptical Reasoning: While some of you have made comments that kind of suggest a stance, it would be helpful to have a more specific statement on inclusion of his ministerial and criminal history, and separately on his marriage and fatherhood, as those seem to be separate questions. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ministerial and criminal history need to be included. These are important parts of the notability of the subject and are the most reported on aspect of Slater's life, and without them it is dubious that the subject justifies having a Wikipedia page at all. If secondary sources supporting them are available, I think the rehabilitation steps and their apparent success should also be included. I personally think the marriage and children information should not be included, unless more detail is available. "At some point he was married and at some point he was divorced' is not, in my opinion, a level of information suitable for Wikipedia, except in unusual cases, and I don't think it improves the article. Likewise, with no information on the children besides 'at a certain point of time there were two of them,' I don't feel we have a fact worth including in the article. If we had dates for marriage and divorce, ages of children at time of crime/divorce, etc. these could potentially be an informative addition to the article. The data actually included, though, feels like a stub rather than a section.
I'm of no strong opinion on organization - the ministerial activity should presumably go in the career section, under a new subheading after 'musical career.' I can see the criminal history going in it's own section or at the end of the career section. Elliptical Reasoning (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons that I note above, I don't think it's practical or natural to separate his ministerial and criminal work, as the crimes for which we have convictions (which are the only one I'm calling to include) were on the site of or seemingly enabled by his ministerial work. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I have no stance beyond "comply with the policies please", which in this case here may mean that if multiple editors unopposedly propose an addition, that addition is likely fine. Staying silent during the discussion puts any opposing editor in an extremely weak position for removing the material again. If someone wants to use WP:ONUS or WP:BLPRESTORE, they have to explain their concerns or accept being overruled by a consensus they refused to build. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I did a good enough job including the criminal charges with due weight, which was my greatest concern when adding them in the first place. And I must have gotten it right if people are agreeing that it should be included. The subject is clearly notable without them (multiple charted singles, winner of Star Search, two albums on Capitol Records, wrote a song for another artist), but the subsequent coverage of his pastoring and relevant charges I feel merit inclusion for giving a more complete picture of the person, so long as the tone remains neutral. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: @Elliptical Reasoning: @ToBeFree: -- there seems to be a consensus among all of you that the information on his crimes is presented fairly and worth including in the article. So per WP:BOLD I restored it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- my attention has been elsewhere, but this is the right move. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
David Slater here. I understand the inclusion of specific criminal charges. I do wish to register my displeasure about the mention of my ex-wife's name, our children, and what I can only assume is a secondhand statement about the amount of "debts" my family had. I've stated before that I don't believe I am "notable" anymore, but I am certain that my ex-wife and my children are not. Incidentally one of my children was killed in a car accident when he was 22. My family has been through quite a lot. So I guess my only request, before I walk away from this matter for good, is for someone to really think about the personal lives of others and whether it all should be included on a public website like this. Dns75204 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about weighing the "personal information" and whether is fair and neutral. I know that these decisions are complex and not easy. To me it's ironic however that the article ends with "Slater was divorced." I've been happily married now for nine years! It just seems that when you start delving into a person's personal life it's almost impossible to give the complete picture. At any rate, I think you did a good job with the way you framed the criminal history. I'm not going to quibble further -- unless some random user out there tries to sabotage the page with false or overly personal information. Dns75204 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: @Elliptical Reasoning: @ToBeFree: I wanted to ping you guys quickly about TenPoundHammer's restoration effort. While I applaud TenPoundHammer being WP:BOLD and I agree that there was consensus about restoring the criminal history of the subject, it doesn't seem that the restoration content followed the discussion that you all posted above -- specifically about which section the criminal history should go in. I didn't have a specific recommendation during the consensus discussion but wanted to make sure you three (NatGertler, Elliptical Reasoning, ToBeFree) felt that TenPoundHammer's restoration followed the spirit of the consensus discussion. I have no issue either way.
One specific recommendation, however, is that you all consider Elliptical Reasoning's hesitancy in various posts above to include family member information, including:
I would argue we should include family information only if it is either current or is presented as a sequence of noteworthy events, neither of which is available in the sources currently referenced.
I suggest we remove the sentence At the time of his arrest, Slater and his wife, Melony, had two children. from the article. Jimdmurphy (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting restoration doesn't mean that we think the article was perfect at that point, just that it was closer to what we should have. For example, I continue to hold the stance that the ministerial stuff belongs in career (we actually have a subsection of that on "music career" already.) And that the criminal stuff belongs in career as well, not just because it is at least arguably a career but because the specifics are entangled with the ministry.
I will say that from experience, a personal life portion of biographical articles is standard, and commonly includes the mention of kids and marriages, lasting or otherwise. And in this case, we're not digging into some obscure and inappropriate source, we're taking info from nationally-run wire stories. At this point I would not be horribly adverse to it saying merely that he has had children and has been married, so long as there is the reference that the reader can go for more details on that. Not naming the children is standard, at least for non-notable living minor children (and while they are no longer minors and one is no longer with us, I don't think we have source on the name of the children anyway.) It would be nice if he had some official web presence with a bio, so that we could end it with saying "he lives in South Whereverville with his current wife, Eponymous", but we deal with the cards we have. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the thoughtful contributions here. There remains some inaccuracies on the page, which I almost hesitate to bring up because I think the page is generally fine as it is. But, for example, I did not graduate from Abilene Christian University. I took one class there during one summer. I got the Masters from Lipscomb University. I don't know if anybody wants to do anything about that, and again, it's generally fine as it is. Dns75204 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the statement that I "gave away bathrobes" is inaccurate, although it is humorous! As I recall we gave a bathrobe to couple of DJ's in California as a joke after being prompted by their coworkers. Somehow or other I guess that made it into a newspaper article somewhere and now it sounds like I was giving away bathrobes all over the country! I understand how these things can grow and become distorted. Dns75204 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "bathrobe" claim is trivial enough that I feel no problem with deleting it whether or not it's true. So I've boldly done so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better 👍🏼 Dns75204 (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]