Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Smith


 * 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)

Zak Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 *  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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:ARTICLEAGE : "Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age ... because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The early history of the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&oldid=19874913] also makes me think it was started by some extreme fan, or well something else ..... Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually seems it was a pure copyvio [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=40116949&oldid=40116558]. 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)


 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable as an artist, little to no verifiable information. The only notable thing is the sexual misconduct and multiple abuse news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.1.135 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even if his RPGs publications are few, the awards he acquired from those (see: | Vornheim, | Frostbitten and mutilated, | Maze of the blue medusa, | A red and pleasant land each have at least one, usually multiple, industry recognized award) tend to mark him as notable in this field, though corresponding sections of his biography have been deleted recently (among the 50+ conflicting edits/restorations of the last week). My recommendation, would be to restore his page to pre-"hate campaign" (be it justified or not, this is what it seems from a bystander point of view) state and monitor editing strictly until heads cool down (initially I'd have said locking edits but I'm not sure this is policy compatible and a "neutral tone" additions regarding current situation might make sense). In fact the strength of the current, industry wide, reactions alone could mark him as notable (As per, e.g., https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html they would "quietly stop doing business with" most people, Zak S. situation on the other hand deserves a dedicated communication from them) Xiangh (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — Xiangh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * None of this content is published on the page, and is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion on this page.Merxa (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * The timing of the deletion is not relevant, if its suitable for deletion, it should be deleted.Merxa (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep — actor of several professional movies, author of several RPG books that were professionally published, several secondary sources on his page. — cdang| write me 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This content not referenced in this article.Merxa (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor was I able to find any such content when I looked for refs about Smith. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The movies are mentionned here. You can find his work on RPG here, here or there. cdang| write me 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Storefronts are not reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are public video reviews, reliable sources ? Are written resumes, on reference website, reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BBB:5D50:603E:8751:A81C:21FB (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "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</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Wizards of the Coast has seen fit to make a statement of disassociation from him, including a pledge of profits to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dndstatement) as has been reported in Comicbook.com (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/02/19/dungeons-and-dragons-zak-smith-statement/) at the time of this edit. This took a two minute search, if even that. Editors that can’t find relevant articles aren’t making a good faith effort, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:102E:8:4636:7C58:3252:E552:A537 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, feel free to register an account and begin editing. Merxa (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated in the nomination, I did a search for sources which indeed took two minutes. However, I found nothing that would normally meet the source quality level for biographies of living people. If he's had no national broadsheet coverage (and I can't see that he has), that's a major red flag. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Nice try, but no Leonardo_DiCaprio.Merxa (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * As stated in the nomination, the deletion was driven by a bunch of people saying "this guy isn't notable" on the talk page and not being challenged on it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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, ) 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. , so there's an impact on his career. So clearly passes GNG notability at this point. --M asem  (t) 19:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). --M asem (t) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * sources are enough for WP:N. I ran across this due to his story showing up on my newsfeed. Maxim plus the current issues put this well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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. —<B>Tourchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So far the subject has been compared with Adolf Hitler, the Zodiak Killer, Leonardo DiCaprio, and now, Lavrentiy Beria. Fascinated to see what next. Merxa (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems needlessly snarky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CA00:784:DD62:D696:2F6D:52E2 (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * This is my view as well. Merxa (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I've changed my !vote from delete to on the fence based on the new sources found by . 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)
 * 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. --M asem  (t) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * note: have asked helpful friendly admins via smith talkpage to add the above info to the article:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This one convinced me - I'm changing to a light keep, above. TheronJ (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I wanted to ensure that the article could have been properly sourced before this controversy blew up and I'm happy enough that the following sources, of varying length and depth, were available and could have been used to demonstrate notability and source information in the article: Artnet looks at his art (2007), Escapist Magazine looking at his RPG Vornheim (2011), Vice interview of him and Mandy Morbid about porn and art (2012), Maxim feature on his D&D with porn stars series (2012), Huffington Post look at his art (2013), Bleeding Cool interview (2014), Bleeding Cool covering allegations of homophobia and transphobia (2014), Huffington Post mentions how his illustrations for Gravity's Rainbow inspired similar efforts (2014) (see also Moby Dick, Song of Myself and Blood Meridian, and it helped the publisher get recognition), Bleeding Cool's overview of his Red & Pleasant Land (2015), Motherboard mentions his porn work in passing (2015), Kotaku looks at his game Vampire the Masquerade: We Eat Blood (2017) (also in Eurogamer and PC Gamer), LA Times piece on the last porn cinemas in LA (2017) (I can't seem to get the full content from that link though), Art News discusses International Whore's Day with art and input from Smith (2018). Also FandomMentals' overview of the scandal states his games have won a number of ENnie Awards, what I could find were: an honourable mention in 2011, Gold Winner for Best Writing in 2014, Silver Winner for Best Interior Art, Best Writing and Best Monster, as well as Gold Winner for Best Monster/Adversary in 2018. He also appears to have got an AVN Award nomination for Best Non-Sex Performance in 2014. Emperor (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are really good finds - do you have thoughts on whether they qualify as Reliable Sources? It's been a while for me, so I honestly don't know the answer, but looking over WP:BLPRS, I have some concerns about artnet, flavorwire or even the Huffington Post. Thanks! TheronJ (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is always a bit tricky as it is rarely black and white. I got almost all of those from a Google News search for Zak Sabbath and most of them, like Artnet and Flavorwire are notable enough to warrant an article on here, which are two hand ways of filtering out the more unreliable sources (especially as I hadn't heard of Flavorwire before). The HuffPost has won a Pulitzer so I don't see an issue with using them as a source. Apart from the claims of transphobia and homophobia most would also be used to source uncontroversial statements in the article, at least demonstrating that whatever is being source is an actual thing and has proved worthy of notice from a reasonably high profile source. Even the homophobia/transphobia claims are a reporting of something others have said, which is, this side of legal action, the best we have for the more recent controversies. Now I'm more used to editing less controversial bios (including turning them round when they were in danger of deletion) and I'd be happy to use most of those sources (with a question mark over Flavorwire and the claims of transphobia/homophobia) to properly source an article to the point that it'd solid enough to meet the notability standard. Whether this article should be held to a higher standard because it is controversial and getting more intention than before is something I'll leave to the editors of the page. If so, each source may need to be analysed as suitable for inclusion on a case-by-case basis on the talk page although I, personally, wouldn't have thought that was necessary. Emperor (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking it over the Flavorwire links are relatively minor, I largely added them as it continued a theme that was emerging when I went through the Google News results. It would be an interesting thing to add but the article wouldn't suffer if they were left out when doing a major sourcing and longer term editors can kick the idea of adding them in later as the article gets fleshed out. Emperor (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here's another article, this one from Matter (magazine) by Vanessa Veselka in 2014, https://medium.com/matter/the-best-monster-38461c5cbbf1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.234.219 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Article will need a new sexual abuse allegations section, though this wouldn't be the excuse to keep on its own: existing cites plus those given above are sufficient to demonstrate notability, in particular the industry-standard awards over multiple years for multiple products produced by him. Palindromedairy (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - creation of a sexual abuse allegations section is needed. Merxa (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * this appears to be personal opinion as works are held by major/notable galleries (see above). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Keep sources found in my searches establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.