Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Smith

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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Smith

[edit]

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

Zak Smith (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)

Non-notable artist. A search for sources brings up blog posts, Reddit threads, false positives for other people with the same name, and not a lot else. The talk page is full of people saying "I don't think he's notable" - well, here's your chance to make your case properly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the fence - insignificant former RPG professional / yet another bad-boy of porn. Though this person's misbehaviour is probably one of the main causes of the restructuring of White Wolf Publishing, the inside baseball of the tabletop games industry is not something that gets consistent coverage in things Wikipedia considers reliable sources. As it is probably impossible to demonstrate notability for anything he's actually notable for, it'd be better to remove him than allow his page to remain as the sanitized piece of self-promotion it was. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable RPG person other than current news regarding his sexual misconduct. Doesn't seem to have enough notoriety to justify page based on repeated "sources/references" that are mostly the same interview or blog article over and over again. Brandon (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Articles that were notable for a decade or more don't become un-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7642:25E0:C082:CA38:383C:EAFB (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually seems it was a pure copyvio [2]. Whatever the causes of the article creation, I think it's fair to say it had multiple problems. Such sort of stuff tended to be handled more poorly in the past. There's a fair chance now if something similar has happened it would have been caught and handled differently probably via deletion. Of course the article couldn't even have been created now since it was created by an IP in main space. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable since there is very little verifiable information on this page. First two sections have no references at all. Numerous anonymous edits to this page suggest self-promotion. Art section contains only one reference to support the three statements. Irrelevant personal life statement describes two cities the subject lived in (again no reference). See also section appears irrelevant. Also: WP:ITSINTHENEWS Merxa (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At the time of this vote there is probable political issues going on to corrupt any probable outcome and the vote itself may be connected with current events. I say leave the article for now, and after the current events die down then review it again. Wikipedia should be viewed and reviewed based on its content, and deletions around some current event seems pretty sketchy to me. if it turns out criminal activity is the end result found from the current events, then it doesn't dismiss the articles on Adolf Hitler and the Zodiac Killer among many more exist. reviews just probably shouldn't happen during a time when the subject of an article is a "hot topic". Later it will probably be deleted as insignificant for inclusion or of lack of merit to be included in Wikipedia. I say the article should be protected from vandalism until admins can decide the current events are sorted out enough to continue with this vote or other actions regarding this article. shadzar-talk 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, but being a current event, the outcome of said events may warrant its merit in the long run where it didn't have merit for inclusion prior. Also Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a battleground during current events. If it gets deleted now and then has to be recreated after current events, we have all wasted our time and effort, while waiting for current event events to subside will show if there is any reason for its inclusion. shadzar-talk 11:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not up to admins to decide what should or should not be included on Wikipedia. In addition I find suggestions that the current situation makes him notable seem disingenuous considering how no reliable sources exist to comment on the current situation. Either the sources that talk about the allegations of harassment are reliable, and may confer notability. Or they are not and he's another non-notable individual whose notoriety in a small sub-culture doesn't extend far enough outside its bounds to provide any WP:LASTING coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who said admins decide is the article should stay? i say for them to decide if it should be protected due to the vandalism prior to and shortly after this delete vote. it makes me wonder as further posts and votes below suggest that maybe the current events could be the only reason driving a vote. that is a bit strange to allow to happen. sure maybe people like myself only came across this article due to recent events, but its always a bit coincidental when two such things coincide. this is why i suggested to hold off on this vote until after recent events and protect the game by admins from vandalism to see what people, as the deletion header notes, find to edit into the article. it may very well not be worth keeping. but it is the timing of the deletion and current events that i am calling into question. shadzar-talk 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe your response is helping us to get towards consensus. We now have an extra week to discuss, and the page is locked to editing for the next few days. If the page is retained, the media coverage picked up by Google News would form a major part of the current article. The new content should reshape the content in general (i.e. by updating it, removing irrelevant or unsourced content, rephrasing to reflect the content from the media coverage), as well as enabling us to create a Sexual Abuse Allegations section.Merxa (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Is 'x' a reliable source?" doesn't mean anything. If you mean "a reliable and independent source to demonstrate notability?" then no. The Yellow Pages is a reliable source, in as much as we can trust the information in it is factually accurate, but you can't use it to show that JB's Diner, Brighton is a notable topic (because it isn't). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll make a parrallel. If Leonardo diCaprio would be accused of sexual abuse, would a request for deletion created on his page? Folks, this guy is the equivalent of Leonardo DiCaprio in tabletop RPG community. If he commited such crimes, it is in the interest of the public to know! Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, not a f** battlefield for teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BBB:5D50:E0CB:C8E0:B642:6D2C (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion campaign appears to be linked to current events so it should be frozen; if notability evidence (MoMA paintings and 4 books collecting awards, with tabletop RPG major companies enough concerned to publish dedicated statements) are revoked for not being on his page this only indicates this page needs serious update (the fact peoples vandalize his page should be considered as a stark for notability).
  • Deletion decisions are made on the basis of the notability of the individual. The content you anonymously refer to is of minor significance (many individuals similarly accomplish such minor achievements through their lifetimes without the need for an article to be created) and it doesn't justify the existence of this article.Merxa (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly this is beginning to almost seem like the best summary policy would be WP:BLP1E. The arguments are either that Smith is notable because his name is attached to media products (which is not grounds for notability) or that Smith is notable because of the controversies surrounding his career of late. However these controversies are 1) the accusations of abuse that arose on social media and 2) the role he played in the fiasco at White Wolf Publishing over We Eat Blood. And the problem with using these controversies to confer notability is that, as is the case with many missing stairs, the discussion of his behaviour is confined to social media conversations and blogs; and both constitute self-published sources which are unable to confer notability. So we have two major categories of source: blogs and social media on one hand, storefronts on the other hand, neither of which confer notability.
  • Frankly this is very frustrating. I would prefer that we have an article that discusses the controversies surrounding Smith if only because an example of a career implosion this severe may be of interest to the historical record of the tabletop gaming industry. However, the reality we have to work with is that, until some major publication deigns to slum it to write an article about abuse in the porn industry, abuse in the the tabletop games industry or how his edge-lord antics at Paradox Interactive contributed to the collapse of White Wolf Publishing, reliable sources are not only absent, but deeply unlikely to arise. Frankly, most of his creative output, whether paintings, games or porn, is far too niche to be of any interest to really anybody in mainstream media or academia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Note that i saw this while browsing an external site that has generally been critical of WP deletions and this caught my eye). Before 2019, he appears to have some notability. (eg [3], [4]) Now post the accusations, tehre's going to be more attention to him even if the accusations prove false. His work has already been taken out of the AD&D 5th edition manuals due to this. [5], so there's an impact on his career. So clearly passes GNG notability at this point. --Masem (t) 19:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is the opinion on the use of the Polygon article to establish notability? I'm discounting Bleedingcool and the Maxim article as not meeting WP:SUSTAINED concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why discount them? There's coverage over time about him prior to the events of now, and it doesn't look like a "bust" of coverage (which is what SUSTAINED is asking about). --Masem (t) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly per Masem. The existing Vice profile from years ago is exactly the kind of coverage normally considered to provide notability. It's significant and primarily focused on the article subject. The Maxim article is less direct but still adds to notability, and the newer articles from Polygon and Bleeding Cool put it over the top in my view. Current events are ongoing and it seems likely more coverage will result. —Tourchiest talkedits 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Following the arrest and punishment of Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the NKVD, in 1953 the encyclopedia—ostensibly in response to overwhelming public demand—mailed subscribers to the second edition a letter from the editor instructing them to cut out and destroy the three-page article on Beria and paste in its place enclosed replacement pages expanding the adjacent articles on F. W. Bergholz (an 18th-century courtier), the Bering Sea, and Bishop Berkeley." I love that the glorious Great Soviet Encyclopedia tradition continues on Wikipedia today. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT As written, the article doesn't rise to WP:Author. I do think the article could be updated to meet the standard but doubt there are many editors who are interesting in doing so in a non-biased way right now. When the current situation calms down, if the subject is noteworthy, someone will notice there's no article and create one based on good sources. BrynnAthena (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've changed my !vote from delete to on the fence based on the new sources found by Masem. I still have concerns about WP:LASTING coverage here and how it connects to WP:BLP1E. Smith is an individual who seems to get a puff piece once every decade and a flurry of coverage when his bad behaviour catches up with him and I suspect that once the industry finishes saying that they'll no longer have anything to do with him, that'll be the last we hear of him. However my concern that Wikipedia cannot have a neutral article on Smith is ameliorated by the presence of the Polygon article, which is a reliable source commenting on the things that make him actually, currently notable. As such I'm not wedded to deletion though I think the !votes for TNT may be leaning the right direction. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only spent minutes in any detailed searching but BLP1E would not apply here: he was notable at a fantasy artist, and there was a wholly separate incident with White Wolf that I believe this Zak Smith was connected with (yes, there are multiple poeple with this name so we do need to be careful). In terms of "neutral" recognizing that what he seems to be more notable for is negative press, we just have to be careful of tone in how we write about things. Negative coverage in media is still coverage, just as long as we don't adapt the media's tone from that. --Masem (t) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As somebody with personal connections to the writer-side of the industry, Smith, notwithstanding his controversies is a painfully mundane content developer. The reason the media coverage is almost entirely tied to his negative press is because his contributions when he isn't either harassing women, trolling people on social media or writing deliberately edgy content to drive rage clicks just isn't newsworthy. His work isn't even bad enough, as a whole, to be notably bad. He's just... ordinary; excepting his notable behaviour. I'm citing WP:BLP1E because there isn't sufficient coverage for WP:AUTHOR to apply to his creative work, and his personality-profile articles are at best very sporadic. Which means the fundamental basis of establishing noteworthiness has been his career self-destruct. The stuff with White Wolf was a part of that. In fact, it was effectively exactly what's going on now only that time there was also the issue of the bad taste of his Vampire content output and this time more people are paying attention. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a valid perspective given the appearance of newsworthy content related to the subject. It should now be possible to add the material relating to sexual abuse allegations once the lock has expired. Merxa (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this is a no consensus, but it might be heading towards a keep. So let's give it another week and see where things go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject has recently become notable primarily as the result of reporting of sexual abuse allegations in the media as recognised by Google News. Therefore my current stance reflects this development. Furthermore, the comments from editors have given me hope that we can reach consensus. My thoughts on some issues follows 1) Timing - the timing of events has brought focus on this article, and provides an incentive to achieve consensus at a time when there is a focus on the subject, 2) Existing Content - the existing content in some cases is unreferenced and irrelevant, it needs to be updated and informed by the recent media coverage, 3) Sexual Abuse Allegations - the media coverage has provided more than enough independently verifiable content to enable this section to be created, 4) References - we should review the references carefully, for example in the case of media articles we should reference those included by Google News, 5) Article Locking - locking allows time to achieve consensus, to prepare the content and to diffuse tension. Please add your thoughts to these issues and how best to proceed towards consensus and to achieve the best result for this article.Merxa (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the thing I find most frequently when searching for him is the current drama more than significant coverage of his art. He seems to be neither a notable criminal nor a notable artist, by our standards. - - Slashme (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Good discussion. I'm close to the fence, but think that Massem's sources don't add up to meeting either WP:AUTHOR or WP:CRIME, and don't think adding them together adds much. TheronJ (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject has published game materials, which meets or comes close to WP:ARTIST #3. Those materials have won awards in the relevant genre. He's had art pieces in major museums and galleries per Coolabahapple's sources below. At least 'some' of Emperor's sources below are reliable. Overall, I think it meets notability. TheronJ (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (unless this is another zak smith?), meets WP:NARTIST (point no. 4), works in collections of MOMA - here, Walker Art Center - here, and Saatchi Gallery - here. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - creation of a sexual abuse allegations section is needed. Merxa (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: His corpus as a commercial visual artist is not noteworthy, he has never produced anything that has been important or highly visible in the art world or outside of it. Similarly for his porn career, he has a low level of visibility and importance as far as I can discern. in the table top role-playing game world he has worked on important projects, but anything noteworthy he has been on he been as a contributor to a much larger project in a non-leadership/executive capacity. In the 5 years leading up to the recent controversy the most google searches in a day for his name was 13. The most noteworthy thing about him is far and away the current abuse allegations, which don't warrant a page for him personally. 142.229.115.117 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite the foul nature of the accusations against him, it cannot be argued in good faith that he has not been a notable personage in the RPG industry. HAving been covered in Maxim, Vice, and a number of other professional publications, he certainly is notable....no matter one might think of him. His page does need editing.Ceronomus (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources found in my searches establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not the original author, but I updated some sourcing and the extensive list of RPG awards, and added details from the controversy over abuse. He is certainly notable in the RPG industry, at least as much as anyone in the RPG industry is. Matrox Lusch 13:12, 28 February 2019 (PST)
    • Good work. I do wonder if the awards might be better in an "Awards" section as it is a bit listy already and might be better if it is boiled down into an actual list? No rush but something to consider. Emperor (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2019 (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/Zak_Smith&oldid=1165050274"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy