Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArbitrationGate controversy


 * 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   delete. WP:SNOW Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbitrationGate controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"ArbitrationGate" appears to be a neologism; and where this topic needs to be covered at all, which it probably will in due course, it would be better to do so at Gamergate controversy The Land (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Request an admin closes this as a case of doesn't have a snowball's chance of being kept given the discussion to date, so we can all move on with our lives. The Land (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. On top of being a neologism that doesn't have wide acceptance, it is solely based off of one reliable source, The Guardian, and not being widely reported at this time in other reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Wikipedia deletion policys. It has reliable sources and is notable in the context of wikipedia and the gamergate controversy. Wikipedia editors are trying to delete this article showing evidence of their own misogyny 190.230.238.212 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — 190.230.238.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy delete. This is just a WP:POINT article. The first sentence is copied verbatim from the Gamergate article with the word "gamer" changed to "arbitration". Shii (tock) 15:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a neologism, and this controversy was manufactured by the press. There are no bans that have been enforced as of me writing this, and the article is mischaracterizing what is happening with ArbCom's enforcement of the Gamergate controversy. There is no reason to keep this page, and the only place where it would even be appropriate is the Gamergate controversy article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * wp:TOOSOON. Which means that as things stand it's a delete. However I'd argue against any attempt to snow delete it (or close before the week is up) given that the final ArbCom decision is due in the next day or two. In a week it will be clear either that this is a story (and wp:NOTNEWS is an entirely separate argument) or that it isn't. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts this is a clear cut wp:POINT - I withdraw my comments about not going speedy if that's consensus. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might be included in the Gamergate article at some point, but currently not notable enough for it's own article. Also, where does the name come from, not seeing any source for it. — Strongjam (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge This is a matter that is of relevance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism At worst it should be merged with one of the above mentioned articles, but there is no reason why criticism of ArbCom should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.166.55 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 January 2015 — 84.13.166.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ‎
 * Delete As said above, this is neologism, the so-called controversy was yes, manufactured by the press. If this was a real thing, it wouldn't need to have its own article, but should instead have been merged with the mentioned Gamergate controversy article. (83.253.93.107 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)) — 83.253.93.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong delete. No need for this. At the very most it could be mentioned in the primarily article, but this is ridiculous pot-stirring. — foxj 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep. Gawker and The Guardian confirm that WP is misogynist. All of the content that appears in Reliable Sources should be dumped into the project immediately and nobody should be able to argue successfully against using it. MySIdesTheyAreGoneForever (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — MySIdesTheyAreGoneForever (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Change to Strongly Keep. The arguments for deletion are obviously from white males, even a blind idiot could see they aren't vaginal enough. Only clitoridean arguments should be considered when talking about gender-related issues. MySIdesTheyAreGoneForever (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Although a funny article because of the parody its attempting to show, parody doesn't really have a place on WP and it isn't helping the battleground mentality that already exists surrounding Gamergate. Hopefully some editors can see the parody and appreciate it, but beyond that this article isn't appropriate. Ries42 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not funny. Stop wasting resources on GamerGate, broadly construed. Rka001 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hasty Delete This article is a joke. It's fairly obvious. There is no need to keep it and people might end up taking it seriously. Delete it please.71.192.72.22 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article exists only to prove a point, and is nothing but a reaction to the ArbCom statement on the GG case. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 15:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd also like to note that the sources for this article were all based on a blog post by a Wikipedia editor who was blocked for a month due to violating his topic block on the GamerGate controversy. This should probably be taken into consideration for the value and verifiability of the article content. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rather than being suborned to the GamerGate Controversy, the Guardian claims that the ArbCom decision is indicative of a long-running bias in Wikipedia against women, which it wraps up the article by focusing on. Other outlets now covering the decision have taken a similar tack. Also, claiming this was "manufactured by the press" is both POV and bears no weight on the issue of RS. Neither can one legitimately claim this is "parody", insofar as that it actually does reference real-world articles and a growing controversy in a manner that satisfies existing WP. One COULD argue that there are many parallels to how the GamerGate article itself was treated and that this is a total reversal of how that was handled, but in fact that doesn't matter to WP either. If there are no WP-based arguments for why this article should be struck, then rather than complain about its existence, one might address how WP came to allow its existence in the first place. Calbeck (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Calbeck, there has been no decision that has been released by ArbCom, so the Guardian pretty produced an article based on a lie and didn't bother to fact check with anyone, or even talk to Wikipedians. It would be one thing if it paralleled what happened with the actual controversy, but it is another thing if it is a blatant lie. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I concur that the Guardian report is inaccurate, it is their report that a decision was released. It's been brought up numerous times that factual inaccuracy from a RS does not invalidate its use as an RS, since it's not the content but the publisher which is given top consideration.  Personally, I think that's a WP which should be revisited and refined in light of all this.Calbeck (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I started an essay on this; still pretty early and in my userspace but I would appreciate helpful comments if you have any. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 16:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Just silly and pretty much a textbook case of WP:POINT. Orderinchaos 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious. In addition to the WP:BLP violation, there's also WP:NEO, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:POINT. All this really shows is that we shouldn't automatically consider the Guardian a reliable source anymore. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - the content (after it has been pruned back to the relevant Reliable Source information) could potentially form a very small sub-section on the GamerGate article. This is at best a "footnote" to the much wider issue. Wittylama 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only relevant link on Google for "arbitrationgate" was this article. If this topic is notable enough for any coverage, it's as a footnote or a short mention in an article on a broader topic.GabrielF (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - One source's coverage of an issue does not warrant an article; it's not notable, or even significant. The article's title isn't an established name, either. At most, coverage should be a couple sentences in the GamerGate article. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - For the love of god, I hope this is a joke. Per Orderinchaos, this is just silly. The term doesn't even have sufficiant media coverage to be notable, if we get past that. I cannot find any instances of the term ArbitrationGate controversy anywhere on any search engine, evidencing that this is probably just anti-Wikipedia propaganda. I fail to see how people are proposing for this to be kept... In addition, most of the people that have voted "keep" have only edited pages related to this topic, which makes these account obvious SPAs.  George Edward C –  Talk  –  Contributions  16:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that deletion discussions are not a vote; even if all the keeps are from SPAs, why they say to keep the article should weigh more than an established editor that says the opposite without any supporting reasons. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep on forgetting that, thanks for reminding me.  George Edward C –  Talk  –  Contributions  17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No real relevance, only one outside source that's pretty biased, is reporting on an issue that is currently going on, looks to be made for sympathy rather than info.72.78.145.144 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non notable neologism, though without prejudice for recreation if it does in fact blow up into a larger controversy after the case is done.  Konveyor   Belt   16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All coverage extends from the mistaken Guardian article (written before the case was completed), and recite a blog by an editor that was blocked for bad behavior, and so while there are many sources, it is effectively a mirror of one single source. We do have pages that discuss criticism of Wikipedia elsewhere. --M ASEM (t) 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Obviously this just must be my internalised misogyny talking - but this is obviously made to make a point and nothing else. The title isn't established and if we must have coverage of this, I agree that a footnote in the main subject's page is the only way to go about it. As someone said above, in a week this will probably be WP:NOTNEWS regardless. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is just silly and is about a clear case of WP:POINT and mismanagement of WP:NEO and WP:NOTNEWS. Also of note is that ArbCom has released its own statement to specifically contradict the validity of the sourced material. There's no policy for this one-off matter but I'm inclined to believe a statement from ArbCom about Wikipedia matters than an external media outlet's opinion. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is indeed just something that was created to make a point, albeit a pretty good point.-- The Throwaway Advocate tlk.  cntrb.16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — The Throwaway Advocate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic because the media said so and the media never lied to me.
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and per plain SILLY. An "article" about a non-notable neologism, presumably invented by the article's creator, and in turn based on one article in the Guardian written before the case had even ended and essentially consisting of quotes from the blog of one of the soon-to-be sanctioned editors. Said Guardian article was then reproduced by multiple non-notable sites creating the archtypical manufactured "controversy", followed by people shouting at each other on Twitter (as they do every day and all day over a myriad of things).  Per Konveyor Belt, this is without prejudice for recreation if the ArbCom decision in itself does in fact become a notable historic event with significant in-depth coverage over an extended period of time in prominent independent sources. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nuke it from orbit. Simply an attempt to manufacture a controversy where none existed before. bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge into a relevant Wikipedia controversy article; I don't find that this stands on its own as a notable concept. Harej (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Bless the internet's little heart. Non-notable event with a source that's just incorrect information. Someone is wrong on the internet. Keegan (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a neologism and clearly fails WP:NOT. It has 5 Google hits.  I know that counting Google hits is not a sensible criterion in general, but for a topic like this which is completely internet-based, I'd be suspicious at 50000 Google hits.  For comparison, GamerGate gets over 5 million.  As many have mentioned, the sources are ridiculously lacking, and there is no credible claim of notability in the article. --Slashme (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT & WP:NOTNEWS Avono (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete this flash-in-the-pan silliness per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:POINT, and others I'm sure. This tiny hiccup of coverage is hardly ongoing enough to write up into anything coherent or meaningful, and in fact these articles are already out-of-date, as the decision is still in progress and some votes are still moving around. —Torchiest talkedits 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and because the Guardian article is so wrought with untruths, it should not be used as a reliable source for either Wikipedia or Gamergate. It's clear someone has the ear of the Guardian that persuades them to write incredibly unresearched articles regarding those two topics. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or merge to GamerGate. Beyond the shear stupidity of this, there's simply not enough to warrant its standalone article. Anything worth keeping can be put into GamerGate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:31, 27 January 2015 (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.