Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Modest Video Game Proposal

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 Keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jack_Thompson. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:33, 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:

• 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)[reply]

I feel the need to defend myself here. This isn't about the so-called WP:NOT policy of censorship, this is about WP:V. The JT article was ripped to shreds and the dicussion following it determined that the likes of GamePolitics.com and GameSpot were not reliable sources and were thus removed. The JT article has no online sources at all now. A Modest Video Game Proposal was entirely online-based, with Thompson issuing his ultimatium through the Internet, the "I'm O.K" guys developing and releasing their game on the Internet, Penny-Arcade (online website) giving the $10,000 check, reporting online, and GameSpot picking up his complaint to the Seattle police department. If isn't allowed in the JT article itself, why should it belong on a sub-article, a fork of the article? Hbdragon88 05:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. If this sort of thing is to be Jack Thompson's M.O., absolutely we should keep this information on Wikipedia. His tactics as mentioned here are an important part of the entire Jack Thompson story, and should be preserved on Wikipedia, whether he threatens to sue us or not. Wikipedia is not censored. ekedolphin 06:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The sourcing is better than in the original Jack Thompson article and is easily verifiable, and due to Thompson's own heavy-handed tactics relies to a great extent on documents of public record. There were some questionable sources in the original Jack Thompson article, but that situation has been remedied, and this article is mostly free of those problems. Also, WP:NOT censored per Ekedolphin.Captainktainer 15:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Jack Thompson cruft. The level of detail that we have on him is unencyclopedic. There should be a single article on him and that's it. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, very notable event. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It is a notable event, and has caused a lot of controversy in the gaming community. This article was created to allow the Jack Thompson (attorney) from becoming overly long. --Tollwutig 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, notable event. --Terence Ong 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Jack Thompson. I don't see any good reason for a standalone here... it's not that notable of an event.--Isotope23 17:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a notable event on it's own, as it is the inspiration for a whole slew of mods and fan-games. And it's relatively well sourced now. Jabrwock 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable enough for a seperate article. BryanG 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's notable and well-sourced. --ElKevbo 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article ties the events together well, and is well sourced. Colonel Tom 00:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Captainktainer Maxamegalon2000 04:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ekedolphin and Captainktainer. - Kamek 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.