Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Thompson and video game players

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 of the debate was merge to Jack Thompson (attorney). This is clearly a POV fork of that article. Any verifiable, neutral content should be merged with the Jack Thompson article. If none, the article should be relisted for deletion in, say, a month or so. --Tony Sidaway 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson and video game players

Relisting as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Thompson. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC) (No opinion on the matter myself) Following text from the original AFD:[reply]

No, this isn't for the JT article himself, it's for the two sub-articles:

The Jack Thompson article was recently ripped apart and put under WP:OFFICE for having "unreliable sources." That has since been remedied by going to print sources. Given that the two sub-article also have primarily online (which have been determined as "unreliable") sources, they should be deleted before Jack Thompson tries to sues us again. Hbdragon88 03:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not strong keeping like I did with the other subarticle because some of these sources are a little more questionable. However, the article has improved in quality greatly, and if OFFICE has a problem with it they'll let us know. We shouldn't try to bend over backwards for insane legal threats; that's what OFFICE is for :-) Captainktainer 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems like an unnecessary fork of Jack Thompson (attorney). And a POV fork at that, given the history. It's hard enough keepioing a lid on one article, let's not needlessly multiply them. Just zis Guy you know? 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Jack Thompson cruft. It has a level of detail that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 10:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back w/Jack Thompson unless the article is too long, which, in that case, it should be kept. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourceable information back into Jack Thompson (attorney) There isn't a whole lot that is sourcible on this outside of Gamepolitics. The little that is can be readded to the main article without too much bulk. Would prefer one of the regular Jack Thompson editors to do this merge however.--Tollwutig 14:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It needs a knowledge of context and history (here and outside), we don't want another WP:OFFICE job. Just zis Guy you know? 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jack Thompson (attorney). Honestly the level of coverage of this guy is rather ridiculous. Granted, he is of some notability to videogame enthusiasts, but the number of articles here are delving into the minutae of everything he does. If he'd ever successfully prosecuted a case against a videogame maker, or successfully used a videogame defense, or even brought a successful lawsuit against one of his "stalkers" (his supposed reporting of Texas kid to the authorities is completely self-reported if I'm not mistaken) it would be something worth writing about, but 90% of the content here is about totally pointless chatter that has no discernable effect on the real world. 3 (+?) articles about forum trolling, legal threats that evaporate on scrutiny, hyperbolic polemics, and public responses to Mr. Thompson seems to be vastly overstating his actual ability to influence the videogaming world.--Isotope23 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible, although likely, it won't be, as most of the references are to deleted GamePolitics posts. The accusations of an "industry conspiracy to shoot the messenger" I think are important, because he accused the porn industry of the same back when he was trying to get all sorts of music banned for obscenity. Jabrwock 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever can be reliably sourced into Jack Thompson (attorney). This smells like a fork to get around the sourcing rules on the main Jack Thompaon article. From a quick read of the Jack Thompson talk page several things removed from there seemed to have ended up here (like the Metalgearsolid.org stuff). BryanG 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI this fork was created long before the current sourcing issues came up. The original reason for the fork was because the main article was being considered for deletion due to it's length. This and other sub-articles were a result of an attempt to short the main article, while keeping notable events consolidated. However it never went through the same sourcing review that the main page did after Thompson's complaint. Jabrwock 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, should have checked the history first. But having said that, it should definitely be held to the same standards as the main article as far as sources go. BryanG 01:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unecessary fork with very poor sources. I would recommend merge but as someone who has kept an eye on the Thompson article for over a month I believe it would be unwise and was removed from the Thompson article for good reason. --ElKevbo 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if someone is notable for a specific thing, it makes no sense to separate that thing into its own article and not the subject's biographical article. MCB 07:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jack Thompson is notable for more than video game players, if you read the article you'd find he has faced off with Janet Reno, Howard Stern, 2LiveCrew, and the Florida Bar.--Tollwutig 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jack Thompson (attorney), per Isotope23. Avador 04:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, ask around for stored copies of any sources that have been deleted --King Nintendoid 19:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, While I am a bit reluctant to support an article that defines the Jack's neurotic attempts to pointlessly belittle video game players, MySpace users, and the internet at large as an entity of significance in itself... The existing Jack Thompson article is too big already. Instead I think we should take all such scenarios (specificly, of Jack making dick of himself on the internet) here and on the main Jack thompson article, and organize it into a single large article entitled 'Jack Thompson and the Internet' or something to that effect.--KefkaTheClown 03:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Isotope23. - Kamek 19:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikimedia Office had to get rid of it for a reason. Let's not resurrect it. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OR AT LEAST MERGE, this article seems to be more like a section of the Jack Thompson article sliced up and given its own section I think the sources are perfectly fine. The article is supposed to show Jack Thompson's relationship with gamers and for that I think that his posts on a gaming forum that he trolls at all the time would be a perfect source. Besides gamepolitics doesn't take up THAT much space in the article.User: Father_Time89

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.