Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 1

Harassment via Wikipedia Vandalism
It's worth mentioning that people have been vandalizing this page in a particularly nasty way. I'm not sure if it's relevant or necessary, but it might be worth mentioning that she's specifically keeping track of ways in which she's being harassed online:


 * "I went back and forth about whether or not to share this publicly because I don’t want to inadvertently encourage this kind of behavior or scare other women into staying silent out of fear something similar may happen to them. But ultimately I’ve decided I’m going to document and strategically share what is happening to me because these types of online harassment tactics are used against women, feminists and people from oppressed and marginalized groups everyday."

She previously wrote an article on misogyny on Youtube. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
I feel this article should be deleted as being a blogger and having a youtube channel does not make you eligible for a wikipedia page, otherwise we might as well have a page for everyone on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.91.164 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, being a magnet for retarded gamers that are calling her every dirty word in the book only because she dares to say she's going to make a study about how women are portrayed in videogames should be enough, if only to document how many gamers out there have a complete vacuum inside their heads (something we already knew given the sales numbers of every Call of Duty). It's things like this that make me ashamed of my fellow men. --88.26.53.0 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Documenting the harassment is not Wikipedias job. It's not a primary source; it's not where you put original research. It also seems to be completely incidental that she got a backlash of this magnitude. I understand your argument, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to keep the page around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.40.19 (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I make a page for a few people I subscribe to on YouTube? Kritikal makes great Call of Duty videos, you should all watch them. They're super funny. Or maybe Ashens, or KyrimsonYT. I mean why can she have a page and not them right? 76.98.53.123 (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone you subscribe to on YouTube whose works are being used in university courses is free game. Feel free to add their pages. --Thalia42 (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty ridiculous standard if I ever saw one; particularly considering what kind of random crap from youtube I've put into peoples curriculum in various courses by making it part of presentations. There is absolutely no way to know if this makes her notable; furthermore, there appears to be no source documenting this on the wiki page itself. There's a link to a keynote speech she does, but that's it. If this is truly what makes her notable, why isn't it mentioned, and why isn't there sources on the page? It should be pretty easy to link an internet archive page where her material is mentioned as part of the curriculum of a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.40.19 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to agree to this. She has no right to have her own Wikipedia page. She hasn't done anything noteworthy. Even RayWilliamJohnson has made a few songs, and could be considered by some to be an actual director. If Dopefish doesn't even get a mention in the 'in popular culture' section of his namesake's article, then she shouldn't have her own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.248.198 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the way I first found out about Anita's videos was when my Sociology professor showed several of them in class at UT (the University of Texas). He said, "I'd like to show these videos to help cover media portrayal of women because I feel she explains the topic far more eloquently than I'm able to." Yeah, that coming from a PROFESSOR at a world-class university. Anita is a heck of a lot more than "just another youtube blogger". She is a cultural scientist who is teaching us about the society we live in. THAT'S why she deserves to have her own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.68.201 (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. This article does not merit much worth on here and it's starting to look like an Encyclopedia Dramatica article. She'll probably end up on there anyway (Not like I'll do it or anything). Tsidnic Guy —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the excess of criticism and obnoxious behavior on Wikipedia and elsewhere, as a direct response to her Kickstarter actually makes her noteworthy. She may not have been noteworthy before, but I can assure you that the media will be covering this mess.  See also the Streisand Effect.--Thalia42 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well then, she should get a mention on the page for the Streisand Effect. Just because she attracted a bunch of drama does not mean that she deserves a page in what is attempting to be an official encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.248.198 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She most certainly doesn't pass the notability guidelines. It appears as if the article is here to provide additional credibility to her. 87.113.64.110 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Her videos get on average between 50-100,000 views, which isn't enormous, but I would call notable. She's also been discussed in a range of secondary sources, as demonstrated by the article's citations. Notability is established in my book.Euchrid (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PewDiePie gets around 500-750,000 videos. Cr1t1kal gets 500,000+ views, FPSRussia gets MILLIONS of views. FPSRussia has been reported on by amateur media sources as well. And yet, none of them have Wikipedia articles. Why is that? Because they make videos on a crappy website, which is the same thing Anita does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.248.198 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The amount of evil that has been poured upon her, and the ensuing press coverage thereof, certainly qualify her as notable. There is no question of "deserving" an article: one is either notable or one is not. I am saddened but not surprised by the anonymous attacks upon her that are now appearing. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because a person is 'notable' does not mean they deserve to be in an encyclopedia. I might bring up an old face known as the 'tourette's guy.' He was notable for attracting a lot of drama here on Wikipedia too, and his page was deleted, and creating is now a bannable offense. He also received amateur press coverage after reports surfaced that he had died. This person, like the tourette's guy, does not need an article in an encyclopedia. By the way, why are you saddened by backlash against someone who demanded money for something that many "including myself" do for free every day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.248.198 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, notability is principle determinant of whether or not a topic should have an article. 'Deserving' has nothing to do with it. An article isn't a reward, it isn't a form of praise, it's a documentation of something significant to a large number of people. The number of professional sources discussing Anita Sarkeesian shoudl indicate that that's the case here.Euchrid (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What professional sources are discussing her to the point that she deserves her own article? 174.54.34.65 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wired. Kotaku. Salon. New Statesman. Gamespot. Digital Trends. The Escapist. Euchrid (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Notability before suggesting that this article be deleted.

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

'' 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."'' ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna be a bad boy and say that no matter how much you want to see your hero on here - why, I wouldn't know - there's nothing indicating that she's notable - some mildly popular videos and a couple of reports of her attracting the attention of a rag tag group of internet misfits do not make her deserving a Wikipedia article; besides - it's garbage, a couple of paragraphs without any content in them; I even doubt there's enough information to put on here without copy-pasting out of her own website.Conservoman (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting a few hundred thousands hits on Youtube is just not enough these days to be considered "notable". This page should be deleted. Sensori (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who thinks this article should be deleted, the page you're looking for is WP:AFD. I expect though that if nominated for deletion, it would probably be kept; my personal judgment is that it's a borderline case, but she does meet our notability standards. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else think that they should distinguish the Sarskeesian case as nothing special when it comes to hate being spewed on youtube? because its nothing special. Youtube comments and hate speech go hand in hand with extreme regularity. This wave of hate is present on most videos and it only happened on this one because Sarkeesian pulled the plug on the comment filter practice she usually engages in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.238.200 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of her supporters are coming to this talk page and ranting. We don't need a wiki article for every single blogger that causes some minor drama. 174.54.34.65 (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.149.48 (talk)
 * It seems to me to be the other way around - most of the non-user comments are coming from people criticising her, not supporting.Euchrid (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is correct. Inclusion is legitimate and the article needs to be expanded. Tuggler (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"and her work is often included as material for university-level women's studies courses." This isn't actually supported by the source provided, which says: "Feminist Frequency videos are often included on course syllabi and screened in traditional classrooms and by educational organizations". But either way, that's just a promotional blurb and not really a reliable secondary source. I'd prefer to see the sentence left out. 126.25.72.132 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am enjoying the fact that the reactions to this lady's documentary, including people coming here and arguing that the article should be deleted due to non-notability, have received media coverage, rendering her inarguably notable with reliable secondary sources. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

==Agreed this article should be deleted due to non notablity, there is no mention of her on TV no mention of her on radio and no mention of her in any newspapers, there are only a handful of blogs entries about her, I would remind you all that this doesn't meet the critera for notability.

Non-user comments
It is so gratifying to see so many people suddenly expressing a disinterested desire to improve the quality of Wikipedia! Your fresh perspective is certainly welcome! Being the helpful persons that you are, perhaps you'd consider creating an account and helping address some of the many tasks of pressing importance to Wikipedia's maintenance? --Chronodm (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh snap. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Armenian not Jewish
She is actually Armenian-American according to this source which used to be referenced on the page. My Interview with Feminist Frequency's Anita Sarkeesian --24.5.80.174 (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only text that I see that would support that seems to be "My childhood was largely shaped by traditional Armenian culture, my parents immigrant experience and their liberal values" - which doesn't explicitly say that her lineage was Armenian, though it might suggest so. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo
4th paragraph, after the 5th footnote, the page reads: "it receieved a large number of negative comments". It should be: "it received a large number of negative comments" (One too many e's in received.)ZerZertheMusicEater (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. -- Neil N   talk to me  15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Under Best Known Work the last name is incorrectly spelt as "Sarkaasian" instead of "Sarkeesian". --24.5.80.174 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you too! -- Neil N   talk to me  21:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability
The section seems to mostly consist of people making opinionated arguments as to why this article should or shouldn't exist, which isn't actually how these things are decided.

If you think that the article doesn't meet Notability or Notability_(people) feel free to give your reasoning here, so that other editors can have a chance to improve the article so that it meets those standards.

If you want to suggest that the article be deleted, see Nominating an article for deletion. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is necessary to start a new, policy-based discussion about notability. It should be easy to determine notability based on the general notability guideline; if she is not notable by our standards, the article should be deleted; if she is, the tag should be removed from the top of the article.


 * I believe she passes the notability standard. The simplest statement of the guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."


 * There are already seven sources cited that appear to be independent of the article's subject. Even three would be sufficient. And there are many more sources available, from a variety of publications -- tech-focused ones, general interest ones, game-focused ones, and feminism-focused ones.


 * The strongest argument against her notability would be that she is known only for one event, and that an article about that event would be more appropriate than a biography. But that would not hold up; this interview was conducted before the coverage of the Kickstarter campaign.


 * If anybody wants to advance a policy-based argument that she is not notable, please provide your reasoning here. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical point: nominating an article for deletion is difficult when you're an unregistered editor and the article is semi-protected. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Arms & Hearts, any deletion nomination will need to include a clearly articulated, policy-based argument. There's an open invitation to begin crafting that here. If some consensus emerges around an argument for deletion, I would be willing to take the technical steps of opening the nomination on your behalf; and I'm sure other long-term editors would be willing to do the same. -Pete (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Update: After a closer look, I see that you're speaking on behalf of others, and that you are of course an autoconfirmed user and could start a deletion nomination yourself. Still, my offer stands for anyone else seeking to advance a policy-based nomination for deletion based on lack of notability. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Further update: The article has now been nominated for deletion by another editor. It probably now makes more sense to post views there instead of here. -Pete (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've closed the nomination as keep. I see a lot of comments by anonymous editors here, but the consensus on AFD was clearly snowballing to keep, and I think it probably makes the situation worse for the victim of this BLP to see a procedural nomination like that. The nominator started by !voting keep, which isn't a good sign... if someone doesn't have the inclination to nominate who actually believes the article should be deleted, then a nomination was probably frivolous, though obviously made in good faith. Steven Walling &bull; talk   23:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was frivolity so much as filing for declaratory judgment. --Chronodm (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ruh-roh. Is there actually a rule against AfD-ing an article you think should be kept? — Bdb484 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of. In any case, don't worry about it. I think the fact that IPs asking for deletion couldn't nominate due to semi-protection was a logical reason for nominating the article even if you thought it should be kept. But that plus the unanimous consensus among registered editors suggested there's no reason for us to go through the bureaucracy of a full AFD in this case. Steven Walling &bull; talk   00:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing was of course a joke to begin with. People who think she's abusing very stupid people, vs people who think she's telling the truth and needed to make these videos. Now personally I don't think she'll be notable enough for an article in the slightest within a month, but would agree with her videos being made. That being said, we all know that articles like these are always debated and fought over, but no one ever just comes out and says why and beats around the bush. People have legit reasons to hate this woman, as others have legit reasons to like her. Which is what this was all about to begin with I'm sure. Some people are pissed she's gotten so much money and attention for something she could have done for literally free and probably gotten the same quality, and others disagree with her opinions. Which is why I'm willing to bet they came on here in the first place asking for a deletion. Not the woman herself, but what she's doing.Jokersflame (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * She is a feminist scholar who asked for funding; there are no "legit reasons to hate this woman", and I am appalled that you are making any claim in defense of the haters. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  02:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with some of the things that she says, but to hate her? Absolutely not. And at risk of wandering outside the bounds of talk page discussion, the reason she asks for money to do this is that it's her job. I like being paid for what I do eight hours a day, and so does she.Euchrid (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that notability is not temporary. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

All opinion really. Of course I'll defend the middle ground, afterall Wikipedia is supposed to be the unbiased source. I believe, if you wanted, you can make the argument that she has taken advantage of a very rage filled topic and is now rolling in cash because of it, with her not responding to any criticism or so far what she plans to do with the extra cash for, once again, a web series that could have been made for free. As I said before, I'll defend her right to make it, and it's a video series I am eager to watch, but no one can deny that the reason this article was submitted for deletion was not liking what she was doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokersflame (talk • contribs) 02:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you do your homework you'll see she's had plenty to say about what she will do with the money in excess of the initial request. -Pete (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ. I'll give you an AGF barnstar if you promise to drop this ridiculous false equivalency.
 * Which critics is she supposed to respond to? The IP trolls on Wikipedia or the flamers on YouTube? Maybe when someone has the balls and brains to attach their name to a legitimate criticism, she might be expected to respond. Until then, failing to respond to accusations of ovendodging probably falls short of being a legitimate reason to hate a woman. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact you're so angry over this only hammers the point further that this was always about haters vs lovers.76.98.53.123 (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Bdb484, but I would be angry if any Wikipedia page (or person) came under this sort of hateful, cowardly attack.Euchrid (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good moment to remind ourselves that this talk page exists only for the purpose of discussing improvements to the article -- not for a general discussion of related topics. Let's stay focused on the task at hand. -Pete (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)