Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash Override Network


 * 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   keep. Snow Keep (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Crash Override Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacking notability outside of Gamergate. Ries42 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Specifically, page lacks notability on its own, and only has notability when linked to the Gamergate controversy. Should be Deleted or Merged with Gamergate article. Ries42 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merged/Redirect with Zoe Quinn works too in my mind. As a note, there are 10 sources on the article right now. Of them, half of them (5) mention Gamergate directly in the title. The only source that doesn't mention Gamergate in the title or article is the Tumblr source (a primary source). Many of the articles read as articles related to Ms. Quinn or Gamergate, that also happen to mention her latest project Crash Override Network. In reply to Liz, I disagree. To answer your question "Would this organization be notable if a person who is not well-known had founded it?" I submit that without Gamergate or Zoe Quinn specifically being a founder, this would be completely not-notable. I am not intending to make a judgment on the content of the project, and if more is done in the next few months on it, the project may become notable on its own and the page should be remade. At this point though, that isn't the case. Ries42 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep That is incorrect. Per WP:NGO it falls squarely within the guidelines of a notable non-commercial entity. The scope of the organization's charter is at a minimum national in scale and has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent from the organization. The guidelines further specify that attracting "widespread attention" as "reported by independent sources" precisely because of a "prominent scandal" is a contributing factor to its notability as an independent wiki page, not the opposite as you have suggested here. Deletion for non-notability is not justified per non-commercial entity guidelines. There are rules for different kinds of organizations as to which are considered notable for purposes of having their own Wikipedia page, it is not based on an editor's individual prejudice as to an organization's notability. The criteria is specific and unambiguous. --Modemx (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Zoe Quinn. Right now this is an extremely recently launched website and other than some sites announcing that it launched, there really isn't enough coverage for this to really warrant its own article at this point in time. Now I'd recommend redirecting this to Quinn's article since she is one of the two founders and is the only one with an article on Wikipedia. It could go to Gamergate but this isn't really strictly GG related and that article is already long enough as it is. But mostly it's that this is really only GG related in that some GG related figures launched it and it deals with online harassment, but not GG specific harassment. Quinn's article already has a sentence that sums up the website/service in a nutshell and until more coverage comes about, I don't see where this really passes notability guidelines right now. It can always be re-created in the future but this is just a little soon for an entry.. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   14:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you referring to it as a website rather than an organisation? Haminoon (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because by large the amount of coverage out there refers to the website launching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But either way, I'm just worried that this is getting judged on Gamergate's notability as opposed to this organization's individual notability. Everything out there almost solely talks about this launching, so I'm just leery about keeping this based on what's actually pretty light coverage once you get down to it. I think that it'd be better to have someone userfy/incubate it for a few months and then bring it back when it's received more in-depth coverage. GG is obviously notable and while we can't completely divorce CON from this, we shouldn't be so quick to say that it'd be useful or that it's notable because of GG. I'm just worried about this getting contested a month or two down the line (if it's kept) and someone arguing that the article was kept based on people giving it inherited notability from GG, because it would be useful, and because of emotions. It's not that I'm particularly against this being here, just that GG related deletions can get messy, especially if people think that an article was kept for the wrong reasons. I'd just like to make sure that we avoid that if at all possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Handily meets WP:GNG for independent, in-depth coverage, in this case covered by Wired, PC Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, National Monitor, The Daily Telegraph and more. A trout for the nominator. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notability is conferred by in-depth, third-party coverage, which this subject has in spades. It is conferred irrespective of the circumstances by which the topic came about. Nobody is denying that this subject came to be as a result of the Gamergate controversy, however according to the sources, the group does wish to operate beyond Gamergate-related harassment, so a redirect to that (already huge) article would be inappropriate.  Furthermore, there are persons involved in the operation of the group other than Zoe Quinn, hence a redirect to her article would also be inappropriate. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  16:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - While the organization's founders have experienced harassment due to the GamerGate controversy, the scope of this organization is much larger than that group. Considering that it provides counseling to victims of harassment on social, technical, safety, legal and law enforcement issues, especially in the online world, I definitely think it is notable. This article should be judged on the merits of the organization and not on the notoriety of its founders. I ask myself, "Would this organization be notable if a person who is not well-known had founded it?" and I think the answer is "Yes". Liz  Read! Talk! 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Zoe Quinn Keep. Organisation is only notable for one event in terms of gamergate. Hasn't achieved anything notable to merit its own article. Avono (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: do note that the WP:GNG do not allow us to use our subjective criteria for determining the notability of a subject. The guidelines are clear: in-depth, independent coverage. The topic itself has generated in-depth coverage. I would agree with your logic if the sources mentioned this in passing when discussing Zoe Quinn or Gamergate, however, this is not the case; hence, Wikipedia policy would suggest that this subject merits it's own, separate, article. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * based on WP:NGO I'm going to change to keep. Thanks Avono (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with previous keep comments. It meets WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Krapenhoeffer. — Strongjam (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets WP:NGO, and I wouldn't have started the article otherwise. I don't think it should be merged with Zoe Quinn as this article will be of interest to people like me who have no interest in gaming and game developers. Haminoon (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge: Seeing as how the website was indirectly created as a result of the GamerGate controversy, it seems like it may be a good idea to keep or merge it. 92.233.220.248 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, nice source coverage, including publications globally and multiple languages including Dutch language and German language. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now. It's got enough coverage to be included somewhere.  If there's no continuing coverage, people could start a merge discussion on the article's talk page.  I can see how it might get merged into Zoe Quinn's article, but I think it's a bit early for that yet.  Let's see how it plays out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly meets WP:NGO Spdegabrielle (talk) 21:10, 5 February 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.