Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McGibney

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 was no consensus. LFaraone 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James McGibney

James McGibney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP. Some of his websites might be noteworthy, but he's really only gotten press because of those sites and his legal conflicts, not much of anything reliable exists about him. Going deletion instead of merge due to the lack of a relevant target. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern. However, perhaps the validity of McGibney's entry should not be based on his entrepreneurship per se but the legal case with Hunter Moore (who has an entry btw). It was the first case involving defamation via Twitter. Arguably, this case could very well be precedent setting. ^[1]. Admittedly, I am not nearly as experienced as most contributors, but doesn't this constitute making McGibney "notable"? or at the very least, his "action" is "notable" right? With respect, I am an offering an alternative view I see as pretty legit. Thanks for reading. TheYamMan (talk)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with TheYamMan, the legal case between Moore and McGibney was noted by notable media such as BBC. The page could be renamed or merged but it shouldn't be deleted. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like another notable legal issue. Can web sites like FB be liable for comments posted by users? Looks like they can if Web site helped users "create" the content. Where's the line? A Federal lawsuit has been filed. Covered by legal anchor Dan Abrams for Good Morning America.^[1].TheYamMan (talk)

References

Sorry, I'm back. I just found this too. It's basically saying that McGibney went after TV personality Kate Gosselin's online bullies. Not sure how McGibney got the info on the perps though.^[1]. Also, not sure if that makes it notable on its own. Yet, now Gosselin is suing her ex Jon Gosselin and writer Robert Hoffman apparently, at least based in part, on a series of text messages McGibney posted on Bullyville.com.^[2]. Again, not sure if this constitutes notable legal action, but doesn't seem like everyday legal jousting either. McGibney seems to be at the center of several high-profile legal questions when it comes to Internet privacy and liability. Not sure if it's a crusade or what, but I don't think this activity will fade. I also don't see anyone else really doing this sort of thing. TheYamMan (talk)

References

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.