Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Livejournal Accounts Jack Thompson has used on Gamepolitics


 * 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 delete. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Livejournal Accounts Jack Thompson has used on Gamepolitics
Was speedied as patent nonsense. It isn't, but its reason for existence in an encyclopedia seems, er, limited. ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The page for gamepolitics was usualy updated minutes after another account was made, and that really isn't the purpose of it. Ace ofspade 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Er, come again? ➨ ≡ Я Ξ  DVΞRS ≡ 20:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The mention on GamePolitics.com is sufficient; I'm not sure that a list adds anything more to either GamePolitics.com or Jack Thompson (attorney).  Also, given that Jack Thompson has already made legal threats against Wikipedia, the issue of libel is a possibility.  -- E lkman - (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedaic - and that's 11 letters more than necessary.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Eh? Come again?  This is a list of sockpuppets of some guy on another website?  We wouldn't put a list of Wikipedia sockpuppets in namespace, why on earth is this here? --Deville (Talk) 01:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I get the lurking suspicion that someone is making a WP:POINT violation about listcruft. Perhaps not. — Cuivi é  nen  , Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:16 UTC 
 * Delete. This is silly, and harms attempts to keep valid Jack Thompson-related subpages. Captainktainer 09:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Look, I've been sort of defending Jack Thompson-cruft (hoping that someone would step in to trim it a bit in a way that makes sense), but this is just ridiculous. This goes to really, really, really deep level. Look, when I read Wikipedia, I look for information on What Something Is. That means concise and summarised, yet comprehensive, information and pointers to outside information sources. Would any sane reader who wants good, concise, summarised information be looking at this sort of list? This list is in-depth information. You can't justify it's presence in an encyclopedia. Someone please get thompsonology.wikia.com (or whatever) rolling? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:17, 29 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.