Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Smith (author)


 * 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   delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Smith (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considering the large number of edits, the author has been very parsimonious with information about this guy. Massive set of external links but which of them are actually to reliable sources? (William, considering he is into leather, etc. could you not find a more appropriate photo - such as on this page.) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The entry is properly supported by reliable sources. The sources include regular publications (Lavendar magazine and The Leather Journal) and the Leatherati an independent widely read news source. The objection by RHaworth seems to be based on his personal bias as stated in his comment which is insulting to this subculture and gay community.  This "discussion" or witchhunt by the originator has no place and the categories for which this article is written has alrady been made part of Wikipedia.  If this article is deleted then every articile in these categories run the risk to similar biased treatment.  Then who is to say that rogue editors will not censor everything on Wikipedia to meet their own individual wants.  This article should not be subjected to this discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are really usable, though. They show that the author exists, but existing isn't notability. If you really want I can give you a detailed explanation, but the long and short is that they aren't usable. Just because a website is read often or is popular doesn't mean that it can be used as a reliable source. Sources have to go through a pretty strict process before they're considered to be trustworthy enough to count as a reliable source. And when I say strict, I mean strict. I've had sources that I thought were pretty reliable end up getting removed because they didn't pass these guidelines. When it comes to the stuff that covers any niche subject matter, that gets harder to find. It's frustrating, but then it's not Wikipedia's job to make up for the lack of coverage in sources that it considers to be reliable. It also doesn't mean that it's a witch hunt, or that this is happening because anyone is against anything in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored. I apologize if you were offended by RHaworth's statement about the photos. While I'm not as close with him as I am with other editors, I can say that I'm familiar enough with him to where I believe that he didn't mean it as an insult or as a barb against the BDSM community. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Whew. That's a prime example of WP:OVERCITE if I've ever seen one. Long story short, none of the sources are usable as far as showing notability goes. The best one out of the bunch is one where he's quoted but isn't the focus of the article itself. As far as the other sources go, they're either primary sources, routine notifications that he'd be attending or judging somewhere, posts on sites that Wikipedia wouldn't consider reliable, or notifications that he's won awards or held positions that aren't really the type that Wikipedia would consider of any big note. Most awards or positions aren't, when you get down to it. I like to say that about 5% of all awards ever given to anyone, anywhere are important enough to give notability and of that group, less than 1% are important enough to where they give absolute notability. None of these awards/positions fit into either category. Now I understand that despite the whole "Fifty Shades" phenomenon, BDSM as a whole is still relatively uncovered as far as mainstream stuff goes. However, that doesn't mean that it is exempt from having to find reliable sources. This guy just isn't notable enough to merit an entry here. There's enough to show that he could be a reliable source, but being a reliable source and passing notability guidelines aren't the same thing and he's not a big enough of a figure to be considered notable on that end either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE: The subject of this article has more supporting documentation and recognition by award, publication, and position (titles) than other persons in the BDSM Activists and BDSM Authors categories -- without exception. So should non-mainstream sources and support be excluded, and then all in these categories summarily removed from REMOVED from Wikipedia. This discussion itself can be held about each of the articles in these categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: This article being subjected to this discussion is inconsistent with the manner other similar articles have been treated in Wikipedia. See V M Johnson, Guy Baldwin, Desmond Ravenstone, Hardy Haberman, Susan Wright, Janet Hardy and other articles and **NONE** have been subjected to such discussions. The bias for this article is clear from the first comment posted by the originator of this witch hunt. I trust that there will be serious and meaningful thought to the meaning of the impetus for this discussion by the originator and the potential harmful, long term effect on Wikipedia from such overt discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The amount of documentation in the article means nothing if the sources aren't considered to be reliable. You can have over a hundred links to places, but if none of them are considered to be what Wikipedia counts as a reliable source then no amount of them will show notability. The existence of other BDSM persons with articles doesn't really have any bearing on this AfD either. Just because another article exists doesn't mean that this should be kept or that this article's deletion means that they should be deleted as well. It could be that those articles have sources that are considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines and show enough notability to be kept, or it could be that they just haven't been noticed and brought to AfD yet. (And might I add that if you're trying to keep these articles on Wikipedia, bringing them to people's attentions and saying that they have sourcing flaws isn't the way to go about it.) Their existence has no bearing on this particular deletion discussion and just because this article has been nominated doesn't mean that RHaworth is discriminating against anyone. If you honestly and truthfully think that you or the subject of the article are being discriminated against, you can always bring your case up at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have closed the post at WP:ANI as the matter is already being discussed at WP:BLPN, and there is no need to have to two identical discussions at seperate noticeboards, it could be seen as forum shopping. GiantSnowman 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to have the discussion at the stated Administrators Forum has been made. The article Thomas Smith (author) has been renamed twice, subjected to a discussion for deletion where the originator clearly states a disparaging comment. The rogue nature and continuance of actions by a group of geographically connected users on this cite is something that may have long term serious consequences of Wikipedia. The BDSM author, BDSM activists, and Gay Writers categories where this article is located appears to have been subjected to dissimilar treatment.

SEE HISTORY FOR ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION ON DELETION. (Note the William ... leather and picture comment for supporting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As a disclaimer, I was drawn to this discussion because it was brought up at ANI and the BLP noticeboard. After reviewing the sources on the page I agree that none are sufficient to establish notability, either they are not in reliable sources or are passing mentions. His name being so common it is tough to do an independent search but I tried combining the name with both leather and BDSM and could not find any sources that would confer notability. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: There are more than reliable, independent references. Perhaps they are not mainstream, but no less reliable. Please review the WIKIPEDIA standards for reliable sources and notability. Some the above comments are direct contradiction of the established standards. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are, at the moment, 36 references. Quite a few of them confirm facts as asserted in the text - for example, we have 3 sources that confirm that Mr. Smith was named Mr. Kentucky Leather 1997. Good as far as it goes, but confirming facts does not show notability - it just confirms facts. You are correct that non-mainstream sources can be considered reliable, but consider also that someone noted only by non-mainstream sources is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's definition. We see a similar issue where someone is notable in local news for something, but that that coverage does not extend into broader recognition of that individual. We have articles created daily that document the exploits of high school athletes, with the only coverage being the school's website or the local news. That isn't sufficient. The facts of the article are not necessarily in dispute - there is little question that Mr. Smith received these awards, wrote these books, etc. The question is whether sufficient sources exist to show that those awards or those books were noted in a broad enough sense to satisfy our requirements. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is supported and meets the following: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" The Lavendar magazine articles, the Leather Journal publication articles, the Leather Archives & Museum Timeline entries, and the Weekly magazine each meet this test. Additionally, the aggregate of the subjects accomplisments (awards, titles, books) demonstrate acceptance of the notability standard. The references perhaps are from non-mainstream sources and the categories for inclusion are non-mainstream. Each reference is included to support meeting the established standards. Together - the titles, awards and books and supporting references - meet the requirements. I hope that responders review the individual references. Also, I trust that any remarks about the subculture represented are not made in the manner in which this deletion discussion was introduced.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To get to the crux of this dispute, footnote [5] to the above notability guideline states that "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it". For the benefit of those of us who have yet to wade through the multiple references, could you please indicate one or two of the references which constitute "published non-trivial works that focus upon" Thomas Smith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, References which meet the standard of independent and reliable that focus on subject are not limited to the following but include, Reference numbers 14, 15, 20, 22, and 30. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A little friendly advice: you don't need to answer every comment made by other users. You have made your points, so unless someone raises something new, that should be enough.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fair, we did ask him for refs that were non-trivial works, etc etc. But yes, repeating the same statement over and over is not helpful.


 * As to the comment, Ref 14 appears to be a Blog - quite a good one, on the face of it, but a blog nonetheless. Blogs are not reliable sources under our policy. Ref 15 comes from The Word, a regional LGBT newspaper - can't judge reliability, as I can't read the article. But it's better. Ref 20 is an interview from The Leather Journal, a publication of the "BDSM/Fetish/Leather community", according to its website (as is Ref 30). Ref 22 is from Lavender Magazine, a local LGBT magazine serving Minnesota. In total, it all has the feel of local coverage, both geographically and within the Leather community. The fact that we have 9 sources confirming that Mr. Smith was named Mr. International Rubber 1999 is also problematic, as it gives the appearance of some notability (Oi, look at all the sources) without actually supporting the claim of notability with sources from outside the Leather community. It is a concern, and a valid one, that has been raised elsewhere on this page. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, and despite an apparent mountain of supposed citations, little to nothing in the way of true substantial coverage in what would be reliable sources for our purposes. For what it's worth, when a single editor fights tooth and nail to get an article kept (including a spurious complaint at ANI), is virtually always a strong sign that there's a spam/confict-of-interest issue. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Despite WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, severe lack of substantial mention in multiple independent reliable sources. The few reliable sources are far from substantial and support trivial or tangential information. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a ton of sources, but none of them really seem to discuss the subject in depth. AniMate 06:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Article references have been revised by making deletions based on the above comments. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: I note from the above discussion that the article previously had many more sources, I assume that the ones remaining in the current version represent the best of what was available. None of the eight sources presented meet the requirements listed at WP:GNG - reliable, intellectually independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth. VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The version I was looking at was This one. You're correct, it has been substantially pared down since. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and any other measure of WP:NOTABILITY. Claims of prominence within an obscure subculture don't cut it despite vociferous advocacy (perhaps idolatry) of Mr. Kentucky Leather  by the article's sole author.  Claims of no WP:COI with this WP:SPA author are extremely dubious.  I recommend an early close of this debate under WP:SNOW.    Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even at its largest size the article lacked GNG coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The remaining article references are from publications that I thought were considered independent and reliable. IntlWriter
 * Of the 3 remaining sources, the first is a local weekly that only briefly mentions Smith once at the very end and doesn't even support the sentence it's footnoted to. The second I can't access but it also looks local in scope.  The third is absolutely positively NOT a reliable source.  I actually appreciate that you've tried to improve the article, but cut down to the bare bones it's all the more obvious that there's simply nothing notable or verifiable that can be said about him. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.