Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strickland vs. Sony

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.253.129.134 (talk) at 17:27, 28 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Strickland vs. Sony

excessively detailed subarticle regarding subject with no independent notability; any useful content already in main article. Wikipedia is not a blogspace, and one crank lawyer doesn't merit more space than the last umpteen Supreme Court justices combined. Monicasdude 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. {Prod} on all removed by frequent contributor to articles.

  • Keep We need to keep the flowers for Jack entry as this is not just about Jack Thompson this is a turning point in the battle over video game censorship. Flowers for Jack has been a catalyst that's brought gamers and anti censorship activists together to fight influences like Jack Thompson. I think that if you remove this article it's akin to removing an article on Woodstock. Or the boston tea party. This was an important event and it needs to be here for others to discover and find out how this movement really got going.
  • Keep Since when was notability a requirement for Wikipedia entries, or number of articles? Here's notability for you, he's been a powerful influence in the US due to his fight against what he calls "harmful influences". It's rather difficult to condense his past actions into a single article, because he's done so many varied things, from threatening newspapers, to suing companies, law firms, politicians, and court officials, to getting kicked off court cases, banned from websites, and various other things. The sub-articles are an attempt to shorten the main page, while still providing insight into his many different activities. If you want to help shorten and condense them, fine, but I object to you deciding that any articles connected to him are "not notable" and worthy of deletion. Jabrwock 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who removed the origial {Prod}'s, and that's because you're reasoning for deletion was nonencyclopedic account of stupid behavior by the legal world's equivalent of Paris Hilton. A weird sort of fancruft. which is a sad reason to delete a page rather than edit it. You might as well have listed j00 suxOrs, stupid fanboys as your argument. Jabrwock 19:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the articles need a re-write, and we're in the process of doing that. But I get annoyed when in the middle of a content review, we have now been twice spammed with "delete this fan-crap", and an admin User:Brookie who likes to blank the pages without reasoning, and without discussing this. Monicasdude, I asked for your help in cleaning this up on your talk page, and you have so far ignored me. Jabrwock 19:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the excess thompsoncruft. Most of this seems to have all the coverage it needs in the main Thompson article, no? — User:Adrian/zap2.js 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. How do you know how Strickland vs. Sony related to his investigation by the Florida Bar if you have no idea what happened in the case? Or his video game proposal, how do you make it NPOV without showing the proposal, and his reaction to those who tried to satisfy it? The problem we're facing is that Thompson has done so many diverse things, and yet it's very hard to summarize all of it while being NPOV. You almost have to let his actions speak for themselves. The other problem is that we were trying to make the main page shorter and easier to read, while still allowing detail about specific actions. So we could either have a TOC that was longer than most articles, due to the amount of sub-headers, or we could try to break up the article into sub-articles. How do you put in titles that don't show up in the TOC? AFAIK, you can't, so the only way to clean it up is to either remove the titles, and make it harder to read, or put the top header in the article, and the sub-info in a seperate article. Jabrwock 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We already discussed merging the Robida articles, and it was decided it related more directly to Thompson than Robida. So we tried to merge it with Thompson, but it's rather long, so we're in the process of figuring out how to summarize it. Jabrwock 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above about the problems we're facing, namely article length. This is the reason the sub-articles were created in the first place... Jabrwock 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to include a lot of the information, because several sections deal with relatively minor cases involving Thompson. You can, instead, include only the most important cases Thompson has been involved in, and also include external links to other sites that contain more detailed information about the minor cases he has been involved in. That's one reason why many articles include an External Links section.  Cdcon  20:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem is that all the information is spread across many different websites. The current set of info spans over 170 links. So how do we condense it all into a few sites so that we can shorten the wiki entry without loosing all the gathered info? Isn't that what the wiki entry is for? You see what our problem is. We almost need a sub-website to gather all this info together, so we can summarize the important stuff. Jabrwock 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we could make a "research collection" page so that we can keep track of everything (major and minor), and then summarize the important bits on the main page. Because it's really hard to keep track of everything he's done, it's so spread out all over the place. Jabrwock 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right about needing some sort of research collection page. I see that you are passionate about this subject. You can make a personal webpage about it, and link the WP article up to your site. The articles in question go into too much detail (imagine if every U.S. Supreme Court case article had an entire transcript included in it) and should be posted elsewhere on the internet.  Cdcon  22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could we use something like the talk page instead of a seperate website? Just so that everyone can keep contributing as events happen, but only after they are deemed "important events" will they be added to the entry itself. Essentially like the talk page, only organized. Jabrwock 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically like a sandbox/whiteboard for the information gathered, so we can flesh it out before posting it on the main entry. Jabrwock 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I had in mind. I have to end my discussion here, but best of luck in your reserach :)  Cdcon  23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that before the article was way too long, now its nice and clear, and you have further articles to go to for more indepth info IanC 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the articles for now. We can't merge all the articles at the moment; the original one was too long when it was one article. I agree a lot of it may be excessive detail, but not if we're splitting it into separate articles like we did. I brought this up before (that the article went into a lot of detail). But many other articles go into a lot of detail too. If we end up merging, we'll have to summarize what we have (which would be more ideal). But at the moment, we still have a lot of information to sort through and deleting these articles would get rid of needed sources and would destroy a lot of work. Mred64 01:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete redundant information from primary article.--Vercalos 01:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is all valid, important information. Archon Divinus 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with one of the earlier comments. Since when was notability a requirement? If it were, then perhaps we should also delete the Sideshow Bob article? At least Jack Thompson is a real person, who does real things. A chronicle of his actions is certainly relevant to an encyclopedic article about him. Nortelrye 07:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD isn't cleanup. Okay, some of these articles are clearly going wayyyy too detailed and long, but I think the articles should be kept nevertheless; Crufty articles can be trimmed down, then merged and redirected to Jack Thompson, and if the articles are still big enough after fixing, they can stand. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a event in history. Should all events in history that relate to bush go in his artical? No, they deserve their own. Same with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.234.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep -- It's not a matter whether a lawyer deserves more space than a supreme court judge. These are the facts about this man. Encyclopedias are about facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.229.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Move Strickland vs. Sony to Strickland v. Sony (the proper title of the case) and make it into redirect. No vote regarding the other bundled nominations. ergot 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Strickland vs. Sony per Ergot and Keep the rest. --Maxamegalon2000 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" I think that the Flowers for Jack article, especially, needs to be kept. There is no such thing as too much information, and regardless of how well known or esoteric the content is, it has a right to be posted. I for one know that Wikipedia was the source that got me far more interested in the video gamin questions being posed right now, and I see no reason why any of these articles should be deleted. In fact, I question the reasoning behind the nomination for deletion. Just because you haven't heard of the pre-martial sex rituals of a South Pacific group of natives, does that mean that there doesn't deserve to be an article on it?
  • Delete Although I'm not much of a Jack Thompson fan myself, this is starting to become overkill. XX55XX 01:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I've never seen anyone's actions described in such detail. It's like a biography. This level of detail is not appropriate for a newspaper or magazine, let alone an encyclopedia. The Jack Thompson article should give an overview of all this stuff and that's it. If you must keep more than the main article can hold, at least combine it all into just one extra article. -- Kjkolb 10:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Strickland v. Sony. Nomination seems to have been motivated by hatred of Jack Thompson rather than notability of article, given reason stated in intial {{prod}}. Pagrashtak 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist separately - Some of the articles there are unencyclopedic Jack Thompson fetishisation, like the one detailing his livejournal exploits, but there's some decent stuff there. And the non-event of the Computer games Jack Robida article? The press said that they weren't going to cover this angle because it didn't exist, Wikipedia shouldn't either. The nomination was not motivated by a hatred of Jack Thompson, it is more likely that the creation of these articles were. - Hahnchen 15:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Robida sub-article wasn't actually focusing on the game angle, which turned out to be a non-event. It focuses on Jack's behavior after the police & news refused to acknowledge the non-existent game angle. He was trying to get the DA arrested for "impersonating a police officer", and was threatening the newspaper with legal action... I do believe it could be trimmed down, but I think it's still an event worth noting, simply because of the lengths he went to try to make the game angle the centre of attention. Jabrwock 15:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strickland_vs._Sony&oldid=41630657"