Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Smart

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 Hahnchen 01:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Smart

Derek Smart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The entry is all about his games with next to nothing about him. The only piece about him is about his participating in flamewars and a link to provide evidence for this sparked a 13month+ editwar.

Neither Derek Smart's game development history nor Derek Smart himself seem to be noteworthy(or even talked about in the entry). The article has a massive edit/revert war history that still continues and this has turned the article into an uncyclopedia style parody of referencing.

Lastly, it doesnt talk about his role in development, it talks about the development and the games themself, how the games were critically received and how often they changed publisher. In fact, it reads more like a page on 3000AD(the company) than it does Derek Smart the person. Bastion 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

keep Sure the page has problems, it is likely to cause revert wars and it contains a lot of off topic material. But I don't see how that can be a reason to delete an entire article. The piece contains information on a notable guy, let's keep it. Sander123 13:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What information does it contain on the PERSON, and whats particularly notable? --89.100.1.161 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - not appropriate for AfD in my opinion, geez, does anyone use cleanup tags any more or are articles being AfD'ed for having too many references now? What sort of personal detail do you want? Height and weight? The guy is an independent games developer... this means he mostly writes the games himself (despite the grandiose CEO titles), so development history of those games is perfectly relevent to the article. Smart has been mentioned in games magazines for years, undoubtably notable, albeit controversial (but once again, that's not a reason to delete). --Canley 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying a politicians entry should have a year by year analysis of what happened in their government, regardless of if it had anything to do with the person specifically.

Again, my problem is for a bio entry it has absolutely nothing on the PERSON ITS ABOUT. If he's so notable, why does the wikipedia page on him have pretty much nothing about him? It reads like a thinly veiled critique on the games he developed and his companies relationship with developers. It doesnt even mention his age or where he lives, nevermind marriage/family - Just "In the year XXXX Battlecruiser had this happen to it" over and over and over. --89.100.1.161 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is new! Someone who wants the article deleted because it doesn't have enough personal trivia, and it has too much referenced assertion of what makes the person notable! --Canley 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Smart used to be one of the most well-known developers/designers in the world. The article also has 38 citations, almost all from relible sources. If you have a problem with an article's content, try to improve it, but don't nominate it for deletion. -- Kicking222 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And again, the citations are almost universally about negative press on his games or 3000AD litigating someone else. Just because it has reliable citations, doesnt mean the citations have any relevance. --89.100.1.161 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while an interesting solution to the edit war, the article isn't too bad... Addhoc 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I have not yet given an opinion on the content of this article but I can't resist this opportunity. Smart is infamous in the gaming industry for his bad behavior, e.g., allegedly beating up a coke machine, suing publishers, wild unfulfilled promises, and insulting customers. Writing about this goes against WP:BLP or at least is difficult to negotiate. That coupled with sockpuppetry and pushing personal agendas, it is an edit war without end. WP has some most excellent articles on very controversal subjects that I was just admiring, e.g., Charles Darwin, Intellignet Design. This article is no where near that calibre. I'm convinced that the WP process can work but really is an article really worth the effort when it's on a game developer of mediocre games, at best, i.e., marginal that it meets WP:BIO? I say that this is both an interesting solution to the edit war and a good idea. Bill Huffman 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment; consider a move. I don't see a very strong case for Mr. Smart meeting WP:BIO and unlike Addhoc I think the article in it's current form is utter junk in respect to what a biographical article should be, but it is rather exhaustively sourced (moreso than many articles here). Still based on the current version of the article it almost belongs at a Battlecruiser Game Series article with a redirect from Derek Smart because while it is a rather good article about the game series, it isn't a very good article about Derek Smart. A move doesn't require deletion though.--Isotope23 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously his games are notable enough to keep, (with multiple magazine articles and reviews about them) and given his personal involvement and association with them, I'd say that he himself should get an article. He's done several interviews, and I recall more than one magazine article that talked about him more than his games. That was several years ago though. Any concerns about vandalism and such, while valid, are not grounds for deletion, though they may support other action. FrozenPurpleCube 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could not find independent print references to him. I started looking at the websites listed, which are of unknown reliablity, and got tired of the spam and getting stuck in websites which did not permit the back button to return to Wikipedia. Edison 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  Off the top of my head, He's been interviewed in CGW and there was another piece recently in PC Gamer. And of course there's always a bit of writing in the various magazines whenever he releases a game. Ehheh 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I read an article elsewhere [[1]] and came to Wikipedia to find out more about Derek Smart. He's pretty notable in the gaming industry. I don't think that a "bad" article should be grounds for deletion. 159.153.129.39 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Designer of notable game (for good or bad reasons). The references appear to satisfy notability. --Oakshade 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and wonders about the identity of our fair anony... Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dear nominator, please don't bring cleanup issues to AfD, as AfD Isn't Cleanup®. Current state of the article is not an adequate reason to delete the it. As for notability of the person in question, I can't complain; being a lead developer of several computer games and being a highly controversial figure in the Internet discussions means he's OK by me. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - There is no doubt that Derek Smart is notable, the man is infamous for designing one of the most hyped games which bombed on release and is also notorius for engaging in the longest running flame war of the USENET, a google groups search on "Derek Smart" [2] yields a astonishing 53,100 results which alone is probably enough reason to say the man is noteworthy/notorious to be included in a wiki biography. Another reason would be that user Supreme_Cmdr has been alleged to be Derek Smart himself, now how many wiki biographies can claim to have regular editing by their own subject!Kerr avon 08:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • He is not Derek Smart. That was already debunked. Plus, you were the ONLY one who kept claiming that it was in fact him. After numerous warnings about that, here you are once again spouting the same rubbish. As if your numerous attempts at tainting the article and casting him a bad light was not enough. Get a frigging life dude. WarHawkSP 13:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, quite a few like that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - This is another example of what is wrong with Wiki. Someone who has no knowledge of the person, nor the article (no contrib whatsoever) can roll out of bed and decide that it should be deleted. Not to mention the ludicrous reasons stated. For good, better or worse, Derek Smart is one of the most written about game developers of our time and is one of the most prominent indie devs left in an industry that has given way to the fast buck. As a game developer myself, IMO, the article is perfectly valid and the edit wars were perpetrated by Kerr and his friends who have tried (and FAILED repeatedly) incessantly to taint the article with unfounded nonsense. WarHawkSP 13:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible single purpose account, User talk:WarHawkSP/Special:Contributions/WarHawkSP has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Kerr avon 23:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Derek Smart is one of the most written about game developers of our time", This is the most totally ridiculous megalomaniac thing I may have ever read. :-) So it looks like a third single purpose account has been created, Supreme_Cmdr, WarHawk, and WarHawkSP? Does WarHawkSP mean WarHawk-SockPuppet? I thought that creating sockpuppets was against WP rules? Special:Contributions/WarHawk Special:Contributions/Supreme_Cmdr Bill Huffman 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep as per above. -Interested2 22:59, 25 November 2006 (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.