Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Thompson

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 Relist separately Redwolf24 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Thompson

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

• A Modest Video Game Proposal
• Jack Thompson and video game players.

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)

Comment Given that Thompson is a prominent media figure, I believe that keeping Wikipedia's record of these incidents as a part of the information on Jack Thompson is important. Merging the sub-article into the main article would make sense, or any other relocation/cleanup of the information, so long as it is not removed for the sake of censorship.

Comment I think the articles should be nominated together because online sources are the backbone of the article, both are Jack Thompson-related, and are both sub-articles.

• Relist on AfD under the names of the actual articles up for deletion. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Modest Video Game Proposal, merge the video game players stuff back into Jack Thompson via the best way possible deemed by people working on the article there. That may mean keeping the sub-article, but I'd rather leave that one up to those who dealt with the WP:OFFICE action first hand. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per above. dbtfz^talk 04:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please Relist the individual sub-articles. Ande B 05:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please relist the articles you want. This is currently a useful disambiguation page including Jack Thompson, one of Australia's leading film actors. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep these, but trim them to what has been verified. For great justice. 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A Modest Video Game Proposal - Notable and verifiable. || Keep and cleanup Jack Thompson and video game players - Notable, but contains heaps of unreferenced material. || Relist AfDs named after articles which are not up for deletion. -- Synapse 10:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist AFDs are named after articles listed for deletion not for disambiguation pages. --Terence Ong 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge both to Jack Thompson (attorney). At least one of these looks like a POV fork, and we have enough trouble keeping a lid on one article as it is. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and trim per Synapse. AnonEMouse 15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as A modest video game proposal is a notable event, which has gotten quite a lot of fame in the gaming industry so it needs a keep where as Jack Thompson and Video Game Players could probably be remerged back into Jack Thompson (attorney). This has been discussed on the Jack Thompson talk page on occasion (now archived) with no real concensus as to what to do, because of the strict scrutiny Jack Thompson (attorney) is for verifiable sources. --Tollwutig 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist separately. Neither really hold water as standalone articles, IMO... but it is rather misleading to list them this way.--Isotope23 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist And what is with this automatic call for AfD every time someone thinks an article is substandard? Is it that hard to use the talk page to ask for a cleanup, or talk about what parts need to be redone? Jabrwock 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I note that no-one has used the talk pages for either article to discuss cleanup, citation requests, or reliability concerns. So why the sudden jump to AfD? Jabrwock 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone point me to where the policy of noting online resources as unreliable is located? I am aware of the rulings on blogs etcet, but is there any rule in place saying that online resources are inherently less reliable then print ones? I consider this quite the oddity concerning that wikipedia itself is striving to become a reliable online resource. SanderJK 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • See the guideline page Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which provides details about how various sources fit in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Really, an item in an edited and peer-reviewed online publication is more authoritative for our purposes than one person's unchecked opinion that gets into a print magazine. It's just that online stuff has much more original un-fact-checked material compared to "reliable" material, so people overgeneralize. Barno 20:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see absolutely norhing wrong with Jack Thompson as is. It is a shining example of a redirect page McKay 23:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if McKay's opinion isn't sarcasm, this is a shining example of why this AfD needs to be split and relisted.--Isotope23 14:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Even if it IS sarcasm it is still a shining example of why this AfD needs to eb split and relisted.--Tollwutig 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both, but cleanup to get the same level of sources as the main article. VegaDark 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The amount of Jack Thompson articles at wikipedia is insane. We have literally everything the man that has ever done covered, including such none events such as Jack Thompson and the Jacob Robida murders. Gamers are Wikipedia and net savvy, and whereas that's great for projects like WP:CVG, it also means that we do have an asinine amount of detail on JT's hair colour changes and his thoughts on the new coldplay album. Some of this stuff does need to get deleted, but I really doubt it'll ever happen, the gaming community just won't let anything go. - Hahnchen 00:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Not really a good reason for AfD though. A reason for cleanup, absolutely, but not for deletion. Jabrwock 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Relist separately. Otherwise, keep A Modest Video Game Proposal as a fairly significant event and merge the good bits of Jack Thompson and video game players into Jack's page but delete the article.-Polotet 00:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep both, since they have important information about Thompson that would get lost under one article --Shaoken 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist separately would be perferable, but just in case keep A Modest Video Game Proposal, which is more or less notable enough to split off, but merge Jack Thompson and video game players into the main Jack Thompson (attorney) article. BryanG 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Will be notable in the future, especailly if video games are censored more. Notable now too. Gold Stur 04:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Both Quite notable now, I see no reason why they should be put up for AFD and the way that they have been nominated is quite confusing in itself. Englishrose 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Relist would be good, though, what the hell, since we're on this AfD right now, Keep both (notable stuff, I think) and add more sources to the latter, which may be a merge candidate in long run. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Quite notable. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, if the articles get merged with the main one then all the Gamepolitics stuff will be removed --Shaoken 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would. The reason for this is that because of wikipedia's verifiability and sources rule, gamepolitics.com counts as a blog and forums. Which are not verifiable sources by wiki rules. Now i could be tempted in a debate to consider the front page of gamepolitics.com as a news source not a blog, since it's written by multiple people on a professional level, and it's hard to draw the line between what constitutes a blog or an independent source. However anything that happens on the livejournal forums is 100% unacceptable unless a secondary news source reports on it. Wether that's fair or not is personal, but such are the rules. It does make some sense though, since already in the past bans have deleted slews of source material for the original article. SanderJK 11:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondary source, maybe? It's limited, but with it, you can at the very least mention his constant posting on there. --Shadow Hog 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Modest Proposal, Merge VG Players into main article, with some major trimming until we have everything sourced. --Shadow Hog 18:46, 24 April 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.