:::::It contains original research at present, if that counts. Arguably it also doesn't conform to neutral point of view (the general opinion both myself and all but one of the editors in talk page is that doesn't) but that's less straightforward to demonstrate. 

 Maybe not very succinct but there were straw polls for the the two major issues that were reverted by the one dissenting editor, and in one of the two there were numerous explanations by various editors of why this was original research and POV to the said editor in an attempt to reach some sort of agreement (needless to say, it didn't work), even just reading the first few lines will give you the jist of it   If you're not inclined to though, basically a share price drop occured in very roughly the same timeframe as a boycott, even the sources used to show there was a boycott list utterly unrelated reasons for the drop, although this editor is essentially tying to get round policy by not explicitly stating that the boycott was responsible, but still insinuating it by mention of an unrelated chance in share prices.  Think about it this way, using this logic you could look at any significant change in any share listing on the market, then attribute that to whatever you liked that that company was involved in at around that time, regardless of what was actually responsible for the change. 

 The other issue was the article subject being described as a historian in the opening line, which myself and most of the other editors found bizarre given the subject's history and career (primarily a journalist for video game publications, occasional developer, and a few other non-game related articles).  The source for this was a games magazine that referred to him as "[their] resident historian" in a jocular manner with regard to retro video games.  Again the straw poll for this was that the statement should be removed, the same editor would revert anyone that attempted to though, so a dubious tag was added as a compromise, but the editor insists of removing that too.  The versions I mentioned earlier had this disclaimer, and the share price reference removed, those were the only changes, so I don't feel it's a different POV from the current one as no contradictory material is added, only that the most debated statements (only supported by the one editor in fact) were absent.  I'm not sure if that qualifies the article to be reverted then, I suppose. I did say I hope you'd have the patience to take a look rather than something like "restore my version pls", because I was trying to be neutral.  But the article's subject is trying to have the whole page deleted now, so it might be a waste of your time to bother with it now.