Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGate


 * 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. I've spent the last few hours reviewing the article and the comments in this discussion. I'm not exactly happy to come to this decision. The articles is going to be controversial and will be a prime target for POV Editing and BLP-issues for some time going forward, but that is not a valid argument to delete it, only to focus more attention on it to try to counter these issues. However, the arguments that this article does pass our guidelines for Notability does have some merit. If it was nothing more than a tempest in a teapot confined to twitter or the like, I'd be very happy to delete it, but it's not so it shouldn't be. SirFozzie (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article does not meat notability requirements for a wikipedia page. Generally every hashtag that is created on twitter doesn't get it's own wikipedia page just because it exists on twitter, even though many of them are reported on by third party sources. Countered (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently the original page was deleted at some point last night; I had been working on improving it on its talk page, and now the page is entirely gone, talk and all. It has several hundred sources at this point, and has been reported on by Al-Jezeera, The Guardian, Business Insider, and numerous other places. Several places have changed their ethics policies as a result of this fiasco, Kotaku issued an official response to the accusations re: Grayson, and the whole thing has been brewing for nearly a month now. It clearly meets notability guidelines; I'm not sure who deleted the page, but they really should not have done so as we had some stuff going on on the talk page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant enough coverage across a variety of sources, including but not limited to The Guardian, Forbes, Business Insider, Vox, Slate, and Al Jazeera Stream. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 20:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With the comments on cleaning out any controversial information and protecting the article, I'd like to voice support of taking caution and removing potential BLP-issues. That being said, I don't think a redirect is necessary, and would rather have the article truncated while still retaining basic and clean information. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 04:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 20:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but empty content and protect for about two weeks - This is an article ripe for BLP issues and partially because we don't know all the answers. Things are moving too fast to make something neutral at this point, though it definitely has the coverage to be a topic once the dust is settled. As such, I'd rather see this just redirected and protected for about two-to-four weeks until the whole issue has settled so that we can then have a better chance at writing a fairer article (not that this present one isn't fair, just that there's a lot of details to be added and we're lacking the full picture). If necessary, the redirect here should go to Zoe Quinn, who's page is already under a lot of scrutiny from bad faith editors and is the central figure to this. --M ASEM  (t) 21:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Specifically at this time, Quinn has been able to produce a number of logs she reported had taken by just sitting in various irc channels from the people that are the reported ones that launched this campaign against her. As she is also working with the FBI, this I can see turn very nasty knowing the attitudes of those against Quinn. Even now, on the larger picture, whether Gamergate is about journalist integrity or about females in the video game industry, or some made up term, it's hard to know what the focus should be. In some time we will know, however). --M ASEM  (t) 21:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We have covered other controversial issues in the past, such as the Shooting of Michael Brown, which involved actual, physical violence and mayhem. We don't need to go out of our way to protect this article unless people actually ARE engaging in BLP abuse, and part of the issue here (as is noted by several reliable sources) is that Quinn has been accused of playing the victim and hiding behind victimhood to avoid reporting on allegations of misconduct. We need to keep WP:BLP and WP:HARASS in mind as well, but the issue is not nearly so clear cut, and I don't think we need to protect the article unless we actually end up with major issues; TBH most of the nastiest vitriol I've seen on Wikipedia is coming from people accusing others of being misogynistic for even discussing it. I think if we discuss things calmly, coolly, and rationally on the talk page, we can hash things out and make a good, NPOV article depicting what is going on. See [|my discussion] on the page for details - we have tons and tons of RSs on the subject, and I don't think we need to worry about its notability excessively, or lacking in good sources. We've got places like Al-Jazeera, Forbes, Time, Business Insider, Vox, and lots of other places reporting on it, so I don't think we're too worried about this all just being WP:GOSSIP, and the issue has expanded beyond Zoe Quinn - she sparked it, but it is only partially about her, and a great deal of it has to do with the response and the greater issues with the industry coming to a head per the RSs. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Shooting of Michael Brown there was a lot of "happening" alongside the speculation of why it was; as such a good article on just the timeline of events from a neutral standpoint could be made. Here we are dealing with something that has yet to been proven to have a lot of "happening" and much more hearsay and speculation. Facts are starting to emerge slowly, so we'll certainly have some type of article on Gamergate at some point, but I feel we cannot write a fair article at this time. The suggestion below of delegating it to the barest facts, those reported by non-VG sources, and to only the core events. --M ASEM (t) 22:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the full channel logs of the channel she was quoting from have also been released, and draw some of her comments on them into question in their full context. Ironically, if you follow the social media keruffle that surrounds this, a meaningful number of the people trying to maintain that this is about Zoe Quinn are the anti-GamerGate folks (including Zoe herself), while in the bulk of discussion on the GamerGate side she's only interesting as far as thezoepost having been a flashpoint, and some specific poor conduct of her or her alleged partners (such as her involvement with TheFineYoungCapitalists, whether or not two of her alleged sexual partners being involved in the selection process for Indiecade Night Games creates the appearance of impropriety, etc).  I suspect keeping NPOV on this article will be frighteningly difficult, given that much of what is going on is about the very media that would be covering it.  How does/should WP write about a scandal regarding journalistic ethics when the majority of sources that would be deemed RS and cover the subculture are the very ones whose ethics are being brought into question (and thus have a vested interest in trying to claim it is about something else)?  It doesn't help that the more people look into the various organizations tied into the GamerGate complaints, the more complicated it gets (the connections between SilverString and seemingly everyone, the whole Polytron/IndieFund/IGF mess, etc).  I'm sure there are parts of this that will be difficult if not impossible to get a third party RS on (such as Operation Disrespectful Nod, a part of the whole GamerGate thing wherein people contact advertisers about the media sites in question), or the new ethics policy at Defy Media (parent company of The Escapist, and triggered by GamerGate), which seems inline with the stated goals of GamerGate. Schadrach (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We're well aware at the talk page that getting a third-party, RS article that has zero bias in this is going to be hard if not impossible. But what was can do is look to articles that strive to present both/all sides of the issue to avoid biasing one side. Additionally, as being discussed at the talk page, some of the specifics might be best left out - noting Quinn had logs, and that 4chan claims they don;t show the whole story is fair, but getting into the specifics of what Quinn says were the key statements or what 4chan says were the wrong ones would be too much detail that would invite more conflict. --M ASEM (t) 19:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect - I'm with Masem on nearly everything he said except for redirecting to Zoe Quinn. I feel like that's going a bit too far. Sure the whole incident was started because of the Zoe Quinn controversy, but redirecting it to there is probably not a good idea. The article is notable and needs work, I can agree. But I don't find the idea of redirecting the page to there to be well. GamerPro64  21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Masem. The topic meets GNG, but Wikipedia is not a news report. The story is still developing rather rapidly so it may make the most sense to pare the article down to its simplest facts and protect it for a few weeks until a BLP-neutral article can be crafted. -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can cover the stuff which has already happened, but should avoid being a crystal ball. There is significant coverage about the issue from a number of different angles in a number of different sources, so I think there is enough to actually cover the basics of the article - what caused it, what made it blow up, and the various accusations. We have dealt with other controversial incidents (such as the Shooting of Michael Brown, which involved actual physical violence, including several deaths) so I think we can cover this reasonably well. See []. The idea that it is about any one thing is wrong to begin with, as several articles note that the whole thing is very complicated. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I meant by "its simplest facts". Just the "who," "what," "where," and "when," but not the "how" or "why." For now anyway. We can expand the article in a much more neutral manner once things have settled a bit. -Thibbs (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur. It's a big, messy, moving elephant of a target with a lot of facets... Which makes for a difficult editing environment, but hey...! kencf0618 (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment LA Times, Examiner... lots of sources have covered this already. Exodus of various writers, freelance in particular caught in the crossfire. Making things even more complicated is that the FBI is involved now. Still a developing story - or stories I suppose (rather complicated). Even when all the dust is settled (if that happens?) it's going to be a mess to sort out. Nothing Wikipedia hasn't done before though. I'll leave it up to others on how to format the information though. Ryan Norton 22:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but i'm with Masem, this isn't about zoe. lets wait for this to end before writing the article in the meantime collect sources. Retartist (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: for clarification i mean that the article should be untouched until it ends, DO NOT redirect to zoe because although she may have sparked it, she is no longer important; she is trying to remain populr Retartist (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I wrote the article because GamerGate blew up on my Twitter feed, and because it's a fascinating complex of death threats, viral phenomena, feminism and culture war. As mentioned above, it's a big, messy moving target. The implementation of Wikipedia policy have proven to be interesting too. kencf0618 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly sourced; somewhat vague and indeterminate subject matter; and lack of demonstrated long-term notability. Not every transient Twitter/Reddit meme needs an article. Zoe Quinn is notable, but I'm not convinced that this 'controversy' is. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep. The article is still a bit of a mess, but I think there's now enough significant coverage in reliable sources to say that this one passes the notability test. Robofish (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the reasons noted by Robofish (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC), keep in mind that there are two sides to this story and the other side is not sourceable. The reputable articles used as citations in this article are filled with journalistic bias as noted by people on the other side of the controversy. Generally speaking one can expect this article to be subject to numerous edit wars by people on both sides of the controversy, looking to use Wikipedia as their own personal propaganda tool, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. If further evidence is needed of that fact, look at the edit logs for this article which seem to be pushing and pulling the article in different directions to suit the agenda of the person editing it. This controversy is too recent, tempers are running high and of course the article itself may not be relevant in a few months.Ramba Ral (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the other side of the issue (from Quinn and others) is basically Anon/4chan, which means that we are likely never to get a good reliable reason for this from that side. Arguably, Quinn's ex-bf (which made the initial allegations that we can track) is also on that side, but again, we're not likely to get a good story from them. Keeping that in mind, we can still write an article that sticks to the actual events filtered by non-VG sources (some already identified).  But we need a better picture of what all this really is before we can write that well. --M ASEM  (t) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily 4chan fighting a battle alone. Adam Baldwin has been involved with it heavily over on Twitter and brought the whole thing to the attention of conservatives, and a couple of sources (Vox, for example at http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting) make note of this. Citation Needed  &#x007C;   03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, what's the situation here is we have two different "fences" here. There's the "corruption of game journalism" aspect (eg the claims Quinn slept with a reviewer to get reviews) that we do have sourcable aspects on both sides (That's where Baldwin would fit in as well as TotalBiscuit); but then we have the "anti-SJW" aspect that is where you have Anon/4chan on one side and the rest of the journalism aspect on the other. That side, we're likely never to get their POV at all. But that's why for now, we best stick to core factual details and why I'd rather just see the article protected until we can work out all the POVs that are involved. --M ASEM  (t) 03:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be much more beneficial to scrap the article and wait until cooler heads have prevailed. As I and many others have said, there is no way this article is ever going to be neutral. Hell, even the mention of Zoe Quinn on the Did You Know? section of Wikipedia's front page was not neutral. Ramba Ral (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Masem's comments. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  .  01:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - As I mentioned at WT:VG, it has come to a point where we have to write about it even if we don't want to. There are clearly enough reliable sources addressing #GamerGate in detail. - hahnch e n 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The space-filling sources are repeating gossip which need not be repeated on Wikipedia (WP:NOTNEWS). Watergate involved a lot of significant events—by contrast, nothing notable has occurred in the he-said-she-said flamewar reported in this article. The correct procedure is to delete this and wait three months to see if recreation is warranted—that would depend on whether anything of encyclopedic value could be written regarding a gamergate event. The current content is that a boyfriend posted an attack on his former girlfriend, and that a bunch of accusations followed, and that Quinn has been harassed. The harassment is covered at Zoe Quinn and the other stuff is just the current issue-of-the-day at various shock forums. The punchline of the article is that the name GamerGate is itself a meme designed to attack a living person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The term GamerGate has evolved beyond its initial intended usage, much as Yankee Doodle had. Death threats have been made, and the FBI is known to be monitoring the harassment of game developers (thanks to the International Game Developers Association), so stay tuned. kencf0618 (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "The punchline of the article is that the name GamerGate is itself a meme designed to attack a living person" - This kind of thinking is exactly why this article will never, ever, be neutral and why it should be deleted. To one side, GamerGate is a meme designed to attack a person, and to the other side it's designed not to attack the person but what they see as systemic dishonesty. Emotions, not logic, are running high and I don't want to see Wikipedia become the personal propaganda tool of either side Ramba Ral (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Widely reported and significant event with far reaching impacts quite separate to nonsubstantive claims at the heart of it. —Pengo 03:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, pare down to basic facts, then protect for two weeks. This will be relevant in a few weeks, once the warfare dies down.  But until then, to stop the inevitable edit wars, this needs to be locked down harder than the Pentagon.ip.address.conflict (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable (at least not established as separate from Quinn or Sarkeesian), and there is no way this is ever going to be a neutrally written article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable, as GamerGate has far reaching consequences for the gaming journalism as a whole. Though the article does need to be NPOV.  DarkNightWolf  ( T | C )  07:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Far reaching consequences" would be great if there were a reliable source to verify the consequences. So far, it's just a circle of people repeating each other's gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Guardian, Al Jazeera, Forbes and Business Insider are reliable sources Johnuniq.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To Johnuniq's point, the consequences haven't been yet established by these sources; sure, the VG journalism side is going around with opinions on the "death of 'gamers' as a name" and a whole bunch of other valid rhetoric but that's all insider views and somewhat tainted; however, this does not mean that we won't get external sources to comment once the issue has settled down, and given that they are covering it now, is a good sign they will cover it in the future too. Even so, there are also, in the VG industry, some strong RS sources that are less involved in the mess (Gamasutra, Game Informer, etc.) that are likely going to continue the coverage to work from. --M ASEM  (t) 14:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Thibbs (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Covered by notable reliable sources such as Guardian or Al Jazeera.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Considering the totality of: 1) BLP issues (high); 2) quality of sources (low); and 3) tendentious editing (high); I consider it unlikely we'll be able to produce an NPOV article on the subject in the near term. When people are citing really borderline sources like Business Insider and Al Jazeera Stream as the "reliable sources" (and citing things even worse than those), it doesn't give much confidence in quality. Maybe revisit in a year once better sources appear. 2nd choice is to keep but pare down to a short factual article. --Delirium (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I posted this, I've been made aware of more mainstream media coverage (e.g. in the L.A. Times print edition), so I change my vote to cautiously keep. I do remain worried about the NPOV and BLP angles. --Delirium (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're worried about BLP and NPOV issues, why not join us in trying to make it better? We could really use more editors, and people who haven't been following it might be nice as fresh eyes. Though admittedly the talk page is a bit bitey sometimes. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is receiving extensive coverage from top-tier sources (The BBC, Los Angeles Times, etc.) and is clearly considered significant by the media, the exact litmus test for WP:NOTABILITY.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  18:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep while dealing with BLP and other issues in a sensible manner. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * IGNORE THIS ENTRY and associate the content with the relevant people. At the moment the article is parsing several distinct issues / components - none of which actually say what is or isn't GamerGate. The responses by the BBC have nothing to do with GamerGate and are instead an extension of the harassment of Sarkeesian, the remaining supporting sources are largely Op-Ed pieces delivering their own interpretation. This is dangerously close to gossip. Koncorde (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oped pieces from non-SPS, non-VG sources are demonstration of significant coverage by secondary, independent sources that demonstrates this. Mind you, the bounds of the issue are very "squishy" right now, and that's something to be figured out, but it's not isolated to one or two persons. --M ASEM (t) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies I appear to have voted twice, so please ignore this comment. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, as this is a significant event with some coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up as a redirect to Zoe Quinn or some other suitable article. As a matter of style, the current name is unsuitable, and the article should be moved to something like Gamergate (computer game controversy). We can certainly hope that higher quality material on this topic will eventually materialise. The recent "Gameovergate" revelations have not been documented as yet. Although they may not affect the developing events (largely based on mutual animosity between people who zealously defend a subculture and entertainment journalists they perceive to be damaging or corrupting it) the news about the use of alleged corruption as a pretext to attack women changes how we will approach the topic. It's a crisis in gaming, but it's also a carefully planned campaign of slander and intimidation that runs underneath and alongside the crisis. --TS 22:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. This isn't an imbroglio that's going away. Death threats have been reported to law enforcement, so it's not some tempest in a teapot of a sub-culture. kencf0618 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just learned that the American FBI has been investigating harassment in the video game industry over the summer. LA Times. Although it's not clear yet whether there is any more to Gamergate, the topic could well end up being just a small chapter in the broader topic of misogynistic harassment in gaming culture. That's certainly the early consensus of the news reports (as opposed to op eds). --TS 00:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They are working with the IDGA but they haven't been actively yet getting into any of this, but Zoe Quinn has hinted she has provided some information to the FBI on her current harassment cases (there's no verifiable evidence of this). However, this is something to keep in mind that this might gain more sources over time. --M ASEM (t) 00:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but decimate and protect per others above. It's too damn soon to try and build a full article out of this. If it were a viable option, I'd suggest something along the lines of transwikiing to Wikinews... but I doubt anybody's going to actually execute that. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think someone tried that, I found an article on WikiNews last night, can't find it again though.  DarkNightWolf  ( T | C )  03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been years since I've seen a transwiki outcome at AfD anyway. I get the feeling it's not done anymore, or nobody knows how to do it anymore. And I'd never seen a transwiki to wikinews. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We actually cannot transwiki to Wikinews as their license is CC-BY-2.5, and ours is CC-BY-SA-3.0. --M ASEM (t) 03:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen the article. It's still under development, and it hasn't been updated since the third of September. As far as transwiki requests, they pop out on AfD but it's just rare and it's usually to Wiktionary most of the time. Also, I've always thought anything Wikimedia used the same licensing for any project. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  .  03:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Each project must use an open license, but each is free to choose the one that best suits theirs. The inability to transwiki from en.wiki to wikinews (but not the reverse, we can use content from CC-BY only sources) has been noted before. --M ASEM (t) 03:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well there's the explanation. Thanks Masem; looks like a true transwiki is not possible. I think decimating this article, protecting, and using (where appropriate) to link to ongoing developments is about as good as we can get. Too bad. I really think it should be possible to kick a lot of the technically-notable-but-recentist event/controversy articles over to Wikinews until the story develops further. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is why Wikipedia should not be a newspaper; we don't know enough about lasting effects. Fails all criteria for WP:EVENT. Fails EFFECT and GEOSCOPE, then fails DURATION spectacularly. IMHO, it's still short of meeting DIVERSE and and INDEPTH. This is a 4chan-created meme that the gaming press has adopted, and it has spread only because of the life-threatening actions of a few irresponsible anons. I'll confess the Vox and Slate articles help the keep argument, but IMHO, the average Yankees game gets more media attention, and deservedly so. (Like the Vox author, I agree that #GamerGhazi would have been far more appropriate, as an invented controversy which seems to serve the inventors' interest.) My second choice would be to deeply truncate and protect, as several editors above have suggested. BusterD (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The incident is connected to the DoritosGate, which shows that coverage is extended in time, making this not a single-time event. Diego (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Another invented controversy with routine coverage to mark its passing. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's already a wikipedia page on this topic: Sexual harassment in video gaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PigArcher (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicate of entry Sexual harassment in video gaming, individual page not notable enough. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic of GamerGate is different from Sexual harassment in video gaming. Although they have some overlap, GamerGate also involves the integrity of gaming journalism, which are outside the scope of the latter. It also extends in time to previous incidents like the DoritosGate, which has nothing to do with sexism; I'd propose renaming the article to Video game press controversies and make sure to expand the scope and cover those. Diego (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with List of peevish reactions of the gamer community to any imagined slight. BusterD (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the above looks unnecessarily harsh. I'll concede we may eventually need an article about game community reactions, but since the intersection between the subsets "gamer" and "wikipedian" is large, I'm not sure we can get a neutral article out of what has been so far published. I think Stephen Totilo's reaction on Kotaku Friday afternoon was the best take I've seen on the overall event: ​About GamerGate. And he basically says get over it. BusterD (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you honestly believe that Kotaku is anything approaching a reputable, unbiased source on this subject, you haven't been paying attention.Ramba Ral (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to Diego's point, sourcing is now tying this to events that started mid-last year of "entitled" gamers that have reacted over-the-top to game devs (irregardless of gender), including death threats, causing some devs to leave the industry and what has prompted the FBI involvement prior to these actual events to help determine how to stop such online harassment. This is a culmination of all this type of nonsense. --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - while related to a hashtag campaign, it has developed into a noteworthy news event in and of itself. It is not 'fully covered' by sexual harassment articles, and categorizing it as such would be a violation of neutral POV. --Primal Chaos (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge whatever is useful and and redirect to Sexual harassment in video gaming -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Lengthy in-depth articles by The Guardian and Vox sealed the deal after various other articles in non-gaming press gave significant attention to the controversy. Clearly, this is a notable event in gaming history, regardless of your opinion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment While I'm working on figuring out the future of the article, I believe that there is merit that this can be expanded into a general discussion on the issues of the last few years that involve the poisoning culture in the video game industry (albeit: I will have to source this information and not present it as POV). As I noted, events now are things that started at least a year ago, and this is part of a longer-running issue of potential issues with game journalism.  I can't right now wrap exactly the bounds of this, but a key facet would be that GamerGate would be a section of that, instead of being the only focus of an article. --M ASEM  (t) 18:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? "While I'm working on figuring out the future of the article"? It is not your place to decide that. You gave your position in the discussion like everyone else and all you can do is accept the result.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant in the sense that I was trying to figure out on my own how it could expanded/etc. then present that to the talk page as an option to consider. By far, I'm not trying to claim ownership of the article. --M ASEM (t) 20:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sexual harassment in video gaming covers the overall topic broadly enough, and is ripe for some expansion, but it'd need to be monitored closely. There's really no need for a standalone article; all that does is give advocates a larger patform form which to mitigate the original harassment by going into mind-numbing detail.  They already tried this at Zoe Quinn last week before bouncing to this one. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even sources defending one of the sides of the controversy like The Guardian note that the issue goes beyond any harassment. Other reliable sources like Al Jazeera note that there are numerous legitimate concerns raised by the other side.So naming this as "sexual harassment" is incorrect as per reliable sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the issue is more than just sexual harassment, though that is one facet of the problem. It's harassment in general and growing chasm between developers/journalists and players that this event hit all the right buttons to make huge. --M ASEM (t) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:COATRACK article used to propagate gossip about developer Zoe Quinn under the guise of a "games journalism" controversy. Lots of BLP and NPOV concerns with the article in its current state. Breadblade (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only piece of gossip on Quinn is the possible encounter with a reviewer, and 1) that's been neutered to the fundamental claim as much as possible and 2) the flashpoint of the whole event and cannot be ignored. As I've noted above, there's a lot more history to this event that needs to be added to understand why this blew up. --M ASEM (t) 20:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If by NPOV concerns you mean it is heavily slanted towards the anti-Gamergate side of things then yes, there are lots of NPOV concerns with the article in its current state.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article in its current state is 100% pro-gamergate, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Fringe, and WP:Undue. No reliable source has confirmed the "Journalistic ethics" narrative of the controversy. If you want to argue that that is a part of it, fine, but the objective facts show it has always been largely about misogyny and anti-feminism. There's plenty of support for including this under Sexual harassment in video gaming, or to create a more specific article like Anti-feminism in Gaming that covers the extended campaigns against figures like Sarkeesian and Quinn. If this article doesn't get deleted it needs to be heavily edited to reflect the actual, confirmed facts regarding the incident and protected to prevent disruptive edits. PigArcher (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * fairly discusses the ethics-in-game-journalism aspect, but there is more on this when you start talking about pre-August 2014. Unfortunately with the article fully protected, that stuff cannot be added now, but there are issues with gamers seeing problems with game journalism policies. --M ASEM (t) 23:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WRT the proposed created category above, I would support creation of same but would hope a slightly less POV title could be found&#32;SPACKlick (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

*Keep The subject is indeed notable and if curated properly has the potential to be an excellent article.--Perennius (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Perennius (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking SPA !vote.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple and sustained coverage by mainstream sites like Forbes and Slate, and game industry sites like Gamasutra and GamesIndustry. Old Guard (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously notable. Just because people think the article subject is controversial doesn't mean it should be deleted.  Konveyor   Belt   22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete pr Cwobeel, Huldra (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but keep an eye on it: From a glance, I don't even think there's NPOV issues (the Totillo statement pretty much blows the "journalistic ethics" straw man out of the water, if it was ever made of something as strong as straw). I don't trust the article to remain that way given the amount of petulant manchildren Wikipedia seems to accommodate for. Sceptre (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but lock down tightly. GamerGate has been getting continuous coverage for several weeks from many mainstream media sources, which is an unusually high level of coverage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Article Creator I came across one reliable source (I forget whether it was Gizmodo or Kotaku) covering the subject in my standard reading for the day, and I didn't know what it was, so I turned to Wikipedia. No article. So I found other reliable sources covering the event, so it met the notability criteria. So I created the page. Current sources abound. There's no reason to delete, although BLP applies, so content should be pruned as appropriate. McKay (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ayyy I marked this article reviewed! I was dubious when I came across this article originally as a stub in the new pages feed, but it seemed to have widespread coverage and the potential for a lot of good references, which it currently has. Upjav (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will say, however, that ongoing coverage is questionable, and it could be too soon for this. Maybe this could be userified, but I don't see a problem with a 'keep' and then a later deletion proposal if coverage dies down to the point that this fails notability guidelines for news and events. Upjav (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete it with fire An unencyclopedic kerfuffle in Blogistan. 96.251.137.43 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge relevant sections with Sexual harassment in video gaming and Video game controversies (although only a tiny bit is relevant there). as yet this event doesn't meet WP:Event strongly enough to merit its own article although my personal feeling is it eventually will. &#32;SPACKlick (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Having looked at the increased number of RS's this doesn't seem to be going away. Vote changed due to changed landscape. SPACKlick (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The amount of mainstream and subculture attention it's getting from is pretty overwhelming. Despite the "battle" taking place on blogs and social media, this is obviously a significant event in this subculture. Strict adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:RS is imperative, of course. 93.172.61.72 (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — 93.172.61.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. BusterD, Ramba Ral, and others sum this up pretty well. In the final analysis, the topic's scope is insurmountably vague, and the article will always suffer from sourcing and BLP issues. It is a one-time news story that fails WP:NOTNEWS as well as every criteria of WP:EVENT. It is also redundant with several other articles we already have, including the biographies of the involved subject, sexual harassment in video gaming. Relevant material can be merged into the existing articles. However, there's no sense and no value in keeping another unencyclopedic BLP landmine in the article space.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. We do not delete articles because we fear they may have problems.  Konveyor   Belt   15:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We absolutely should and do delete items for failing WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT and every other notability criteria.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet NOTNEWS. Reliable sources point to this as a recurring problem with the industry that goes back years.  Konveyor   Belt   15:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I've tried to explain, there's a larger problem here that this GamerGate was the flashpoint of. We want to expand the article to reflect that but it's currently under full prot to be able to do so. --M ASEM (t) 15:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The incident itself is just another one-time news story of the week, it absolutely fails WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:NOTEVENT). The article on the underlying issues can be expanded, but this particular trivia has no enduring notability.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true yet, there's enough indication that this event will be triggering changes in the industry, for better or worse. There are already effects on the game jounralism side with some editors going out to be more open about their reporting structure, etc. But I agree that we should have waiting on this to get a better picture of the whole thing and how to scope the article properly (whether GG should be the centerpiece, or just one aspect of long-running threads). However, as it is created and the idea should be going somewhere, deletion is not helpful. --M ASEM (t) 16:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "" - newspaper DigiTimes disagrees with that view: Diego (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but we don't keep things because they could be notable, we keep them because they are notable, and nothing distinguishes this from every other one-off news story. Again, relevant material, such as there is, can be added to the relevant articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Things are notable when they have been noted. Stories that last more than three weeks generating news at news media are not one-off events. Diego (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable and well covered. . WeldNeck (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Some additional coverage in Breitbart, Salon, and The New Yorker.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and Protect - it's a notable event that found itself thoroughly covered by secondary sources. While it may be difficult to resolve some of the neutrality issues that this subject will necessarily cause, there appears to be no cause for deletion. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There is clearly enough coverages and source to make this relevant from all provided above.--BerserkerBen (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepPlenty of sources have discussed about it, has barely anything to do with Sexual harassment in video gaming at its core, since there's been reported attacks on both sides200.59.78.239 (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — 200.59.78.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete; based on current reliable sources this is essentially a subtopic of Women and video games; there's simply no mainstream support for the claim that this is about 'corruption' and not about harassing women. If we must keep Keep Protected for the immediate future: there have been lots of calls on Twitter from those using the hashtag to come to WP to 'fix the article;' (and also to boycott Wikipedia for hosting such a biased article.)  It's going to be very important and very difficult to keep this WP:BLP article to reliably sourced and neutral information while the rabbling is still going on. -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles like this from the New Yorker go into the complexities that are just beyond gender issues. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you give me specific quotes that you think suggest that the New Yorker accepts the narrative that this is about corruption and not about punishing specific women? The closest they come is here: In the past few weeks, a debate about journalistic ethics in video-game coverage has spilled onto social media. Tens of thousands of tweets were written, most of them accompanied by the hashtag #gamergate. Many Twitter users involved in the discussion called for more clarity and disclosure by writers about the relationships they have with independent creators. They want critics to abide by John Updike’s sound rule to never “accept for review a book you are … committed by friendship to like.” In Quinn’s case, the fact that she was the subject of the attacks rather than the friend who wrote about her game reveals the true nature of much of the criticism: a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible. (The debate dissipated after Quinn posted the chat logs of some 4chan users, revealing that the #gamergate hashtag had been coördinated with malicious intent.)  (Emphasis mine) That article clearly supports the conclusion that this is primarily a targeted attack on women in gaming. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the section I was talking about (and to keep our bias, it should be noted that the 4chan logs have been the subject of how valid they are and are still being debate; it has not ebbed yet). But here's another mainstream source from the Telegraph that goes beyond the fact it is just about harassing women in video games. There's many sources on the talk page of the article that are being discussed for inclusion that go into all the facets that have come up from this. I understand that if I was not a gamer, it may seem that the story is as simple as "female game dev harassed by gamers", but really there is a lot under this that several sources are trying to figure out. --M ASEM  (t) 18:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If that was the quote you were talking about I'm going to go ahead and stand by my statement that the MSM is not treating this as a legitimate movement about journalistic corruption, but as what it is: a bunch of angry rabble making vague excuses about corruption to cover their harassment of women. Bending over backwards to interpret the New Yorker's mention of GGs 'concerns' as legitimizing them (by ignoring the very next sentence which points out that they're *not* legitimate) in the name of 'neutrality' is not going to improve the article.  Yes, several articles mention what GGers 'claim' their movement is about (and in so many words; the second article you offered specifically qualifies it as a claim.)  But this alleged journalistic corruption isn't what's getting mainstream attention and coverage: the MSM is talking about the misogynistic aspects of the movement and treating the 'corruption' claims as a smokescreen.  When there's a legit expose on some of the GGers claims of 'racketeering' and 'collusion' and 'bribery scandals' then we can talk.  Until then legitimizing those claims puts us in danger of BLP violations.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All I can do really is that we've been collecting sources on the talk page, that regardless of how this started, even if it was an organized effort to harass a single person, it has grown beyond this, making the overall game community have an introspective review of why we got to this point. Honestly, if it was just simply the organized effort, it would have been called out and ended long ago, and I would completely agree a standalone would not be appropriate, but having watched this explode, and having read through articles to try to find things to keep the article unbiased, it's clear it's no longer simply about harassment. --M ASEM (t) 18:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I don't agree that the sources - the quality ones, at least - support your contention that it has 'grown beyond' that. Hence my !Vote.  It's a lot of unfocused noise, coupled with a lot of aggression against a few targets. The reliable sources document that. Your contention that it would have 'ended long ago' if it was only an attack on women is nothing but speculation.  People have been harassing women for having opinions on the internet for many, many years.  -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1
Keep and Keep Protected Protect until the end of the Gamergate. This shouldn't be merged under sexual harassment in Video Gaming. I believe it has become noteworthy in the Gaming industry, and should have it's own wiki article. Such as changing policies in gaming journalist sites. --24.17.203.165 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — 24.17.203.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete - wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there is no indication this astroturf harassment campaign will be of any lasting significance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been going for at least a year, see ; this has been the flashpoint. --M ASEM (t) 06:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your link: "Over the past few weeks, the video game community has erupted into a full-blown culture war. " Salon Sept 14, 2014. And you have proven my point. In a year, maybe people will look back and say "this was the incident where things changed" but we can wait and see if people actually say that.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a content fork from Zoe Quinn. Quinn was the catalyst for GamerGate, but GamerGate is discussion of a number of issues revolving around gaming journalism, and is a distinct topic. Polemic Thoughts (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It meets every notability criterion. Its proposal for deletion is not based on wiki policy but on an ideological agenda of censorship. Aesir.le (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Its addition to Wikipedia is part of an ideological agenda of proposed-victim glorification. WP:AGF. On what credible basis does your point lie on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.21.53 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another news story with no secondary sources to provide context; recreate only if secondary sources are published on this subject.  If you think that a contemporary news story can be a secondary source, please go take a historiography course to learn that a secondary source is one that's written after the event in question, not one that's part of the context in which the event happens.  "This has been going on for at least a year" — exactly.  It's still ongoing, and no reliable, published sources exist to back up your claim that this will be a topic once the dust is settled.  Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect a principled appeal to neutrality, but wouldn't such a strict interpretation of WP:SECONDARY mean that Wikipedia could no longer cover things like currently sitting politicians, recent blockbusters and bestsellers, ongoing military conflicts and protests, and anything else listed at Category:Current events or Portal:Current events? -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In contrast to most news stories, nearly every article from RS is actually secondary here - it does create a bias on the coverage in that people are saying if one side is right or wrong (criticism == transformation, ergo secondary). The fact that we have coverage in mainstream press instead of just the usual video game sources gives the independent coverage needed. I will note that I would consider it likely better to expand the article to talk about the general problems that have existed before this actual event as to make the topic less about the event and more about the concept of the change in video game culture, as to also defuse the issue of bias in the coverage of the actual event, but I will say it would have been possible to write about that concept before without this event from happening based on everything before August 2014, but the coverage of the event since has provided even more sources for that. So it is not so much what's going to happen in the future (but as a VG editor, this has drastically shaken up the community, I've never seen seen anything like this) but that we have plenty from the past to go on. --M ASEM (t) 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Significant coverage from many reliable sources. Drunk in Paris (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Extremely biased and missing a lot of information regarding the actual events surrounding the issue. Takes for granted that those quoted are the only ones of import, whilst ignoring the other side of the debate. Evidently written by someone with a strong bias against GamerGate for the purpose of spreading misinformation or, at the very least, keeping people's information on the subject to a minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.114.29 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)  — 86.154.114.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The know your meme article details the notability pretty well. It is sad that KYM, a not entirely "serious" wiki has a much more straightforward, well sourced article than wikipedia. Basically I'm saying that KYM did it better. --Dany0 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The current article is fully protected so we can't edit it at the time, though we are tracking many new sources that try to cover all sides fairly. --M ASEM (t) 14:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I really hadn't thought about scavening KYM for potential sources, but one issue we've been facing is that there are a heck of a lot of opinion pieces, and not as many actual "news" items about it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - will need monitoring and (hopefully) temporary protection, but this is definately newsworthy, definately more than just 'gossip'. If the encyclopedia of the internets does not cover this event, then who will? I do think that this one will need careful attention by editors to avoid emotional moralizing (rather than presentation of facts) on all sides. But given the basic issues at play (accusations of integrity fails against persons who have made accusations of integrity fails) that's to be expected.Kerani (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable by any definition but needs a lot of work and monitoring as the whole gamergate thing is openly loathed by social justice crusaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.190.209 (talk) 19:52, September 10, 2014‎ — 151.229.190.209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strongest possible Keep Based on the reliable sourced presented by and on the article itself, this topic quite clearly passes the threshold for topic inclusion and has morphed beyond the original controversy surrounding Zoe Quinn and her relationships with people in the gaming press. This doesn't mean that anything should go on the article, but because of the potential WP:BLP abbuse, care must be taken in using quality sources when reporting criticism involving individuals in the gaming industry and press. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too much supposition and hearsay to constitute a proper article. Might be possible to merge with a larger topic? If kept, Keep Protected for foreseeable future. --24.34.139.166 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — 24.34.139.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete, with merge of some content. This does not warrant an article on its own. It should be included as part of the individuals BLP's per cited harassment, and if it turns out to be a significant factor for journalism and gaming culture then it should be documented at the relevant Video game journalism, Video game culture and the like. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are not valid arguments for deletion, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT. We can have the topic covered at those articles, and at the same time have a more detailed full article covering it in depth. Diego (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - you already made a !vote on the 7th. Nobody should be using a strict yea or nay count to close the discussion, but even as part of a straw poll !voting multiple times within the same discussion without striking your previous !vote can really confuse reviewing closers. Please strike one of your two !votes. -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I am going to have to say keep here, the article is well sourced and passes WP:GNG as a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has raised significant attention for it to be considered a notable moment in the history of computer gaming and gaming culture. SplatMan DK (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Koncorde . It is hard to say what the article tries to say. It is a mix of several topics that are covered elsewhere. SplatMan DK may be right that this is "a notable moment in the history of computer gaming and gaming culture", but for the moment I believe that WP:TOOSOON applies here. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON is just a summary of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. However, this topic has well established its notability via coverage by multiple third-party, reliable sources. Also, did not give a policy/guideline based reason for why s/he thinks the topic should not have an article. In fact, his/her comments amount to nothing more than, I don't like this topic or think it should be given any credibility. But to suggest that its coverage should be spread out to multiple articles instead of consolidated into one where the readers can better understand the links between the various aspects of the controversy is suggesting that the Ferguson riots should not have an article on its own but should instead be incorporated into the articles on the Shooting of Michael Brown, Civil disorder, Police militarization, Police brutality, and Police misconduct. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a variant of the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST-policy you are applying here, it seems. Anyway, we'll see what the administrators think about it.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you honestly suggesting the absence of a policy or guidelines citation invalidates mine and Jeffs opinion? More so are you suggesting that I "don't like" this subject as some kind of bias? Ferguson riots is clearly notable, furthermore it has precedent. Howevever it almost certainly should be mentioned and can be used as a source of evidence for Michael Brown, Civil disorder and the like. At the moment the notability of this article suggests that the harassment should be associated with the harassed, while the topic of journalism and ethics should be with journalism and ethics and used a source for criticism of game journalism and ethics - because that's what it's about. Instead it's going to be used to create a spin off article mostly about the harassed principles. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a hodgepodge of issues but because these have all been long running concerns in the industry (ranging from harassment of devs, harassment of women, lack of journalistic transparency, the changing demographic of gamers, the rise of indie games and the ability to use them for political messaging, the rise of citizen journalism. etc.) that have all become open topics for the GG stuff. These are all connected facets in the event.  Changes have already happened in the industry (sites adopting policies for better transparency, and for zero tolerance on hateful speech). --M ASEM  (t) 14:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got any sources that indicate those changes that have occurred have any relation to the subject of this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At least two major gaming sites have changed their polices in reaction to all these events. --M ASEM (t) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All of which should be dealt with under Video Game Culture, Video Game Journalism etc long before a stub was expanded into the current debacle of opinion. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am withdrawing my Delete-vote. This issue is getting bigger than I expected, thus my appeal on WP:TOOSOON fails. On the other hand, I still think it is a bad article. So it needs a major rewrite OR the issues could be placed somewhere else. I think that both options are valid. As a result of this reasoning, I cannot maintain my Delete-vote and have to withdraw from voting. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sustained coverage in a multitude of reliable sources, including mainstream sources outside of the videogame world. Given the duration of coverage and the impact that's already been seen (changes in journalism policies as Masem mentioned), I don't believe WP:NOTNEWS applies. CaSJer (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:GNG, this is covered in multiple reliable sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward keep. This isn't going to be an easy topic to write about given the amount of noise threatening to dwarf the signal, but if one looks outside the gaming press (where most of the noise actually comes from), one can find reasonable articles that can be used to write about this topic, e.g. Slate. Notwithstanding the rubbish initial controversy that launched this #GamerGate, there have been real consequences ranging from editorial policy changes at major gaming sites to actual disclosures confirmed by major gaming publishers. Expecting Wikipedia to sensibly cover this topic is probably just as wishful thinking as expecting the same on any other controversial topic (i.e., you are much better off reading about it elsewhere), but my biases about Wikipedia article quality in general aside, this is a worthwhile topic, probably more so than, say, Titstare is. JMP EAX (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose someone could open a merge discussion to video game journalism, which is a rather short article, but that's beyond the scope of AfD. JMP EAX (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Merge is a perfectly standard outcome from an AfD particularly in cases like this where there is WP:NOTNEWS no actual evidence of any long term coverage of a side topic and standard parent level article topic that is lacking in coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But I think there is evidence of that. E.g. Salon or WaPo managed to cover the numerous aspects of GamerGate; these articles contain a lot of links to other articles. So I think it surely has more than Titstare had in terms of length of coverage (and that article was a "keep"). It's because of the multiple facets of the GamerGate controversy that it probably should have its own page. JMP EAX (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a recent hashtag campaign that has gotten some news coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:EVENTS is a better guide here than WP:GNG because it's specifically about events, and that guideline makes clear that you need to do better than find a smattering of recent news articles to show an event is notable. It's too early to say whether this will have any lasting effect or will be the subject of further analysis after the commotion has died down. At the moment the coverage is driven mostly by WP:SENSATION over reports of harassment and conspiracy. It is a bad sign that there is so little coverage out there that could possibly get us to WP:V and WP:NPOV that the page has to be fully protected. As others have said above, this event merits not its own article but rather mention elsewhere in the encyclopedia: Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Women and video games, Sexual harassment in video gaming. If that last topic is as important as some keep !voters insist (and I agree that it is!) why aren't they making desperately needed improvements to that article instead of trying to save this one? We're here to do a good job covering notable topics, not a mediocre job covering every non-notable skirmish in the blogger wars over those topics. Lagrange613 03:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a lot more going on in this than just the surface of the harassment claims; that's what's drawing attention but there's a lot more analysis and understanding and change happening because of the more underlying issues. As I've pointed out above, this is a culmination of many long running issues that have been occuring in the VG community for years, with a few events sparking the clash between devs/journalists and gamers. It is not just an event, and the fact that while the event started mid-August and coverage is still coming belies the idea it is not notable under EVENTS. --M ASEM  (t) 04:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a noun, right? If it's not an event, what is it? A person? A place? A physical object? An abstract idea? I get that this is embedded in a broader context, but whether it's "a culmination" or just another episode remains to be seen. I linked WP:RECENT for a reason. Lagrange613 12:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an idea, much like when you say "Watergate" as a broad term to refer to that scandal. It's become the general issue of the differences between gamers and game devs and journalists. And part of what is hard to explain and demonstrate if you haven't been immersed in the game industry is how the rumblings of this have been slowly building; we can look back now with 20/20 hindsight and identify several issues now, but it wasn't obvious where it was going then. This is the thing that is causing change now, there could be more down the road, but the impact on the industry already is well documentable. --M ASEM  (t) 13:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If impact on the industry were "documentable" then we'd have some documentation of that instead of what we have, which is a summary of a routine Internet kerfuffle. A claim based on immersion in a subculture rather than reference to reliable sources is original research. It's also essentially unverifiable and open to all sorts of NPOV questions, so you've hit all three core content policies in one fell swoop. And it's all attached to an article only you and the other admins can edit, and at whose AfD you're insisting on having the last word with everyone you disagree with. Surely you see the problem here. Lagrange613 01:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's documentable, we're collecting the documentation on the talk page at the present but we can't update the article because it is locked down (yes, even though I could edit it, I'm only touching BLP until it is unprotected). Yes, reporting this is going to be a minefield of content policy issues, but we can report on it objectively, for example, simply stating noted accusations made by specific people without giving any weight if these accusations were true or not, and as long as thee accusations are documented in the independent secondary sources (like the Wa Post article noted recently). The problem is that editors who are looking at the article at its current WRONGVERSION state are seeing only the NOTNEWS aspects of the story, the talk page has much more and should be considered before passing judgement on AFDs. --M ASEM  (t) 02:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and protect This article meets all notability requirements and you can't rationalize deleting an article because there's potential harassment on it. You protect the article and edit it, that's what you're supposed to do as a Wikipedia contributor; you don't delete it. As for the notability there's just been so much coverage in both mainstream and online media that no one can dispute notability when there are so many reliable sources referencing it. And the article is well sourced already. The contributor who mentioned Wikipedia is not a news report doesn't seem to fully understand what the policy is about. The article is in Wikipedia format and doesn't look like a journalistic entry (nor does it talk about anyone in a journalistic fashion) nor can it really be, seeing how the original news are now a month old - not breaking news on their own. However some caution must be used in further usage of breaking news articles. SSJ 5 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: As the warring on the talk page has uncovered, this topic is impossible to cover in a manner that is in compliance with the neutral point of view and biography of a living person policies. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is possible to get past the BLP and cover the topic in broader aspects and avoid the details of every specific accusation. We have to mention a few names as they were targets of harassment, but we don't have to get so far into the "he said she said" accusations flying, only that after the fact, many have recognized that there is a legitimate call for being more open about issues on games journalism and interactions with others. If we chose the right level, we'll be able to keep the intrusion into BLP minimum, and letting anything more specific that WP needs to cover to the specific articles on said persons. --M ASEM (t) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:LIKELYVIOLATION.  Konveyor   Belt   20:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, as there's plenty of sourcing for this as a distinct topic of coverage by reliable sources, but I wouldn't rule out a later merger with a parent topic article if it turns out that this incident has little lasting significance.  Sandstein   17:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment More coverage in The Guardian and Washington Post.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient media coverage to establish notability. Artw (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Zoe Quinn and Sexual harassment in video gaming. It's been gone over in RS, but those have become POV. I vote that the most NPOV parts be split into the two articles I mentioned. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 00:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep. The GamerGate controversy is very notable, especially in the gaming community. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment All of this feels like it's manufactured and we are being manipulated. It feels like the old adage "all publicity is good publicity."  It's Kang or Kodos and everyone associated with it seems to want to keep it alive because everyone associated with it benefits.  I have a hard time stepping back and looking at game developers (individuals and groups), game reviewers and game players being "adversarial."  The more social buzzwords they throw out, the more twitter space they occupy and it drives up interest in all of these people that are desperate for interest and relevance.  We should stop playing the game.  It's like watching WWE hype a wrestling matchup and seeing people think the outcome is more important than the hype. --DHeyward (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Corn cheese (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVOTE  Lazy Bastard  Guy  18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Video game culture we can do without the salacious details but as a sociology topic is appears to be a good fit.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets notability criteria and has very broad coverage. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. In some ways GamerGate resembles the proverbial tempest in a teapot, but enough articles have been published about it in reputable sources that it obviously meets the general notability guideline.  Cardamon (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Simple. --Neil N  talk to me 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Read through the article and looked at the references and it looks to me to meet the General Notability Guideline. It doesn't seem like it is on the list of WP:NOT.  I can't really see any reason not to keep this article. Zell Faze (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. At the moment this is a twitter hashtag that generated enough traffic to warrant articles from SEO minded blog managers. It's being referred to as #GamerGate so why was the tag taken out of the name of this twitter gossip? Lets rename it to - Hash-Tag-GamerGate. At least let this nonsense sit around and stew for a few months and then if the weepy media still remembers it a month later ( Bring back what girls? ), then can write a blurb on it since its 'mostly harmless'. I feel guilty now about all those people who walk past me on the street, whose lives are also filled with drama, passion and betrayal never getting a Wikipedia page to showcase a drama of their very own. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Most concerns of the article violating WP:GOSSIP were resolved with the editing of the article. Citation Needed  &#x007C;   13:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment 7 days have passed, there seems to be a consensus, can this be closed now? Retartist (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded SPACKlick (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable controversy that has generated plenty of RS. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - In this corner, our General Notability Guideline... In that corner, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - There's a clear, although not snowy consensus amongst editors that the article is a clear WP:GNG pass. Arguments for deletion range between arguments based on WP:LIKELYVIOLATION (not grounds for deletion), merging into Sexual harassment in video gaming, and concerns of WP:GOSSIP vios (most of which have been ironed out from edits made during protection and after). WP:BLP is always a valid concern, but this article surpassed the threshold for WP:GNG ages ago. Citation Needed  &#x007C;   13:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it were clear consensus the decision would have been made already. Breadblade (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. It can't possible follow NPOV. Havok (T/c/e) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fails WP:EVENT" you say? Let's see, WP:LASTING . . . check, there have already been reactions of lasting significance such as changes at numerous gaming news outlets. WP:GEOSCOPE . . . check, we have reports in American, Canadian, British, and Australian media with coverage in non-English sources as well. WP:INDEPTH . . . check, numerous articles in major mainstream media give extensive probing coverage to the controversy. WP:PERSISTENCE . . . too early to tell, though the odds are ever in its favor given what has happened up to this point. WP:DIVERSE . . . check, sources from all over the place in the gaming and general media are reporting on the situation. Soooo . . . what were you saying again?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. This is a made-up controversy designed to attack a single person. Although it has enough references to meet WP:GNG, I don't think we need to contribute to the harassment campaign by giving this media flash a permanent home. Kaldari (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a gossip article that reads like it was ripped out of Salon.com, rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. The fact that WikiProject:Feminism feels the need to get involved in this is laughable. Speedy deletion, please. Paradox295 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per all of the above. Either delete this page, or turn it over to Project: Wikifeminism to properly and responsibly curate it. It's all just a conspiracy theory and misogynistic. I say delete it and move on, or let wikifeminists document it properly. 97.117.224.142 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — 97.117.224.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per WP:COATRACK and comments by TheRedPenofDoom, also some WP:BLP concerns after the skirmish with some editors curating this discussion and the Quinn page --5.81.54.112 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — 5.81.54.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: Article is a WP:FORK from Quinn and clearly intended primarily to harass a living person. This is nothing but a forum for the trolls to continue their attack on this young woman.  Montanabw (talk)  01:17, 17 September 2014 (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.