Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoë Quinn


 * 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. WP:SNOW. As the nominator has stated he or she has left Wikipedia, WP:SK #1 is also arguably correct as more or less a withdrawl. --joe deckertalk 05:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is irrelevant for use on the wiki, as most of its content is already in the GamerGate article. Furthermore, it is proven to be bias, and violates the rules for Biographies of Living Persons, and has poor references. Furthermore, the person in question has only one major game release, thus disqualifying her for having an entire article on the wiki. Chocolatechip65 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of sources and the first AfD confirmed she meets notability standards and notability is not temporary. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep And close early per WP:SNOWBALL. There is a game release, testimony before Congress, Crash Override, etc., as well as rumors of a movie.  Ms. Quinn may not be the most important person in the world, but to my mind she is easily notable per Wikipedia guidelines.  Even if we were to accept, arguendo, that the article "is proven to be bias," this is an argument for amelioration rather than deletion.  Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep: bad faith nomination. Subject of a New Yorker profile, congressional testimony, coverage in numerous magazines and newspapers, etc etc etc. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and ban the nominator from GamerGate-related articles until he (I assume it's a he) shows some evidence of independent thought. The second AfD was speedy mostly because it tried to nominate too much stuff at once, but the first one was also a keep and she has only become more notable since. Clear pass of WP:GNG (in-depth coverage in many highly reliable sources); notable for multiple things (game development, self-modification, being attacked, and launching an anti-harassment network). Poorly reasoned nomination statement advances many rationales that are not valid for deletion — What does "irrelevant for use" even mean? People with one game cannot be notable for other things? And "proven to be bias" [sic] is neither backed up with any actual proof nor something that should cause an article to be deleted: the proper response to biased articles is to base them more firmly on the consensus of reliable sources, something that has already long since been done here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, rather than pay particular attention to the made-up set of guidelines being pushed here. We have plenty of people with article who don't even have one major game release - George Washington, for example, or George Washington Carver. "Poor references" includes things like the New Yorker, New York Times, NBC News, and so forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. I don't normally get myself involved in topic areas under ArbCom sanction, but I feel I should note that the nominator has apparently left Wikipedia on the grounds of this being a "Safe Space". I think it's safe to say that this nomination is not only bad-faith, but was done by one of the many, many pro-GG meatpuppets. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nom with a poor rationale.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow keep, for all of the above reasons. De Guerre (talk) 04:28, 17 December 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.