Talk:Spectacular Smith

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... ( This article should not be deleted because the above reason does not apply to this article. This article was nominated for speedy deletion because of no indication of importance. The person "Spectacular Smith" does not belong to a page that already exists within Wikipedia Pretty Ricky. The person mentioned also does not belong to a page in Wikipedia as Spectacular The article that was created for this person also has many mentions in publications, TV shows, and Magazines. ) --Ellabellaestrella (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Photo of Spectacular Smith from A Forbes Magazine Interview.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Howdy,

I removed the 2021 tag for notability from this article, as I find that the subject meeds Wikipedia's eligibility requirements for musicians and ensembles, USA Today, The Orlando Sentinel, Huffington Post, and other cited publications have covered Smith independently. The three listed publications are particularly reliable sources. Those covering his 2020 arrest are particularly non-trivial. Smith has also been covered in magazines like Entrepreneur, Forbes, and Black Enterprise, which are less reliable/have the capacity to be more opinion-driven but still attest to his significance.

The previous attempt to delete the article was shot down under the same criteria. So it's been confirmed that he's notable enough for the article to stand and thus the issue was resolved quite a while ago.

<3 Glamourpossum (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Request to Remove

Hi, this article now includes multiple reliable third-party sources establishing notability (e.g., USA Today, Inc. Magazine, PR Newswire, Business Insider, Entrepreneur, TMZ, Black Enterprise). The tone has been revised to meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality. I’d like to request removal of the tag so the article can be indexed by search engines. Thank you! Jhtsspen (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Apologies my title was cut off by accident - it should read: Request to Remove Jhtsspen (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

No index tag Jhtsspen (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent Pattern of Misleading and Disruptive Edits

Several recent edits to this article have required immediate reversal due to serious factual inaccuracies, baseless speculation, and editorial misconduct.

For the record:

False Attribution of Criminal Conduct - An editor wrongly claimed that Spectacular Blue Smith was a pseudonym for Diamond Blue Smith, and falsely attributed legal charges against the latter to the former. This is factually incorrect and defamatory. These are two distinct individuals with separate careers and public records. Spectacular is the subject’s legal birth name.

Removal of Verified Net Worth Source - Another editor removed cited net worth content sourced from Scalar.com, dismissing it as “not a legitimate source” without offering policy-based rationale or counter-sources. The article in question includes supporting documentation and clearly outlines its methodology, qualifying it under WP:RS.

Tampering with Legal Outcome Language - A good-faith, factual use of the word vindicated (supported by the resolution of the incident) was removed under the claim that it was “not neutral,” despite the subject having been publicly cleared. This edit misrepresents the conclusion of the matter and fails to uphold WP:NPOV.

Reinstatement of Outdated Maintenance Templates - An editor re-added fan POV and promotional content warnings from 2021 without any justification. These tags were previously removed following extensive edits to improve neutrality and tone, including third-party sourcing. If there's a specific new concern, it should be discussed here with evidence. Taken together, these edits show a pattern of poorly researched, speculative, and in some cases damaging content additions or reversions.

Editors are reminded to:

Provide clear edit summaries grounded in Wikipedia policy (especially WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP). Avoid speculation about other editors' motives (per WP:AGF), but also refrain from inserting accusations or defamatory content.

Use the Talk page to resolve disputes, especially on biographies of living persons. Unless good-faith, policy-based arguments are provided, further reversion of the above corrections will be treated as disruptive editing and may be escalated accordingly. Jhtsspen (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)