Talk:Tom Kudirka

Merge Discussion
I noticed the merge template on the page so I'll just get the ball rolling by giving a Support for the idea. I see some overlap with the two articles and, while the MobyGames sources should be removed from it, 2015, Inc. looks to have more notability than the individual who founded it. GamerPro64 22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree. I cut out all the unsourced and promotional content at Tom Kudirka, and really all that's left is content in regards to 2015 Inc. The two articles are redundant to one another, and it seems like the content would better fit in the company article's scope. Sergecross73   msg me  02:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the above reasons. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Looking through reliable sources, there is almost no coverage about this person outside the scope of 2015, Inc. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Support merger, per GamerPro, Sergecross and The1337gamer. Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG independant of 2015, and notability is not inherited. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - No evidence of independent notability outside of 2015. Most of the content is already covered in the aforementioned article. Hakken (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is a Biography. If you don't understand what a Biography is I suggest you visit Biographies of living persons and learn. Tomkudirka (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a biography has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an article should be merged. That's not a valid reason for or against having an article. What you need to be arguing is whether or not there is enough content and sources to warrant having a stand-alone article for the subject. Please see the WP:GNG - its all about having enough reliable sources that focus squarely on the subject. Minus the "Tulsa People" source, the rest of sources present so far focus much more on the company or the company's games than the person himself. With so much overlap in content, unless a bunch more sources are provided, people are in favor of merging the content into the company article.
 * You also have a clear conflict of interest on this topic, as you are the subject of the article, and have written all of the content (outside of any of the revisions I've made of unsourced content or formatting errors.) Writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged. Sergecross73   msg me  14:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is not enough content to differentiate the Tom Kudirka biography from 2015, Inc. it will be added. I have started multiple companies and have contributed million of dollars to charity organizations. Stop stalking me, fan boy, get a life. I understand if other administrators offer there opinion, but every time I turn around you're following me. I think its funny how you cant get me out of your mind. You must have Googled my name 200 times. Tomkudirka (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not stalking you. An editor alerted me to your edits, because he (rightfully) suspected a conflict of interest. Since then, I've added this article to my watchlist - which shows you all changes made to a given article. Disregarding all your personal attacks and misdirections above, I'm merely keeping an eye on a situation as an admin who has been tipped off to an area where policy is not being followed. (That, and you keep leaving comments on my talk page, which is the reason for about half of our interactions so far.) Sergecross73   msg me  14:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that you're frustrated, but please refrain from personal attacks. They do not help support your argument for keeping the article. In fact, they can lead you to being blocked. Not to sound brash or dismissive, but your status or accomplishments outside of Wikipedia do not have relevance in discussions on articles, just as mine or Serge's do not. All that matters here is that you can follow and use good judgement in accordance to Wikipedia policy. Serge is reasoning based on Wikipedia policies, as are the other editors'. All articles, especially biographies on living persons, must have reliable sources. Unfortunately, content verified or added by the person himself do not count as verifiable or reliable, as there is no way to prove it. So, information must be collected from sources not affiliated with the person. Right now, the consensus that is building appear to be that the existing reliable sources focus more on the company than the person; very little talks about the person outside the scope of 2015 Inc, so it appears the reasonable decision would be to merge the two sources. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem guys, other people will add stuff to the Tom Kudirka biography to differentiate it from 2015, Inc. It will be no different from other biographies out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkudirka (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel that you're skimming over the policies being linked to you.. It's not a matter of people adding content, or who they are. Although we must be careful when editors have a conflict of internet (In a general sense), there's no issue with them adding to the article if they maintain neutrality. What it is ultimately about though is the reliable secondary sources and what they state, and whether or not they show notability that passes the Wikipedia guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Understood, additional references will be added. Here's a question ferret. I see in other other biographies information such as when are where they were born, etc. Is that information against Wikipedia policies? Should you and I go in and remove that info from articles ranging from Stephen Spielberg to Taylor Swift? Yes, or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkudirka (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 June 2015‎ (UTC)
 * The information is allowed but needs to be sourced. I'm not going to check right this moment, but I'm 100% certain both of your examples contain the necessary sources. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. First, that would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Second, the content of other articles has no relevance to discussion with this one. Third, it does not change the fact that the information must be supported by reliable sources. As I stated, you yourself do not count as a reliable source, so we cannot include that information at this time. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do agree with 's recent edits here - a lot of this information he tagged is indeed irrelevant to the subject of the article - Tom Kudirka. It's not about him, its about the people who work(ed) for him - again, something more appropriate for a company article than an article about him. The sources don't even mention him by name either. The article seems to need more trimming, if anything... Sergecross73   msg me  16:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)