Talk:Jack Thompson and video game players

Articles for Deletion debate
This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:SELF
From LiveJournal Parodies: "Discovering Wikipedia through links at GP, Jack Thompson posted what he termed to be corrections on this article." This looks like a violation of WP:SELF. Shadowoftime 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure if that's actually true per se, since him vandalizing his own articles would be a noteworthy enough if some media had picked it up, but as far as i know it wasn't reported anywhere except on gamepolitics.com and some of the gaming forums, all of which seem to fall outside of the reliable sources sphere for wikipedia. So while in this case the info might not belong, i'd not say that in general reporting that someone notable has edited his own wikipedia page could never be reported. But there needs to be a secondary source, since wiki is a tertiary source and not a secondary. SanderJK 11:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Forking?
I hate Jack Thompson as much as the next person with a brain, but I really don't think Wikipedia is the place to track his every movement. Sure, certain bits of this are notable enough that they should be on his main page if they aren't already, but I really can't see the argument that Jack Thompson is such an important person that there needs to be a separate article on his interactions with a group of people.- Polo  te t  00:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are already complaints about the main article being to long, resulting in discussions every time the tiniest bit of info is added. For instance, i cannot get consensus to add to the main article that Thompson contacted the Seattle police department by fax with the request to start a criminal investigation for harassment and extortion against Penny-Arcade, even with 2-3 lines. I will agree that this article as it stands is a POV fork though, and needs severe cleanup, not in the least for violating verifiability rules regarding blog/forum posts (basicly, they count as primary sources and thus using them in the article constitutes original research). SanderJK 11:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)