Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All coverage seems to be based off one fairly unremarkable harassment incident, fails WP:BIO Zeus t&#124; u &#124; c 04:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree, this article fails to meet the notability requirements. Paisarepa (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? I see you've only been editing from this account for a few days, so I'm interested to see your understanding of said notability standards. (No offense, nothing personal, I ask because honestly my understanding wasn't that great in my first week here.) Sergecross73   msg me   17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Sergecross73. You're right, I not exceptionally experienced, and I welcome correction. I try to just read the notability guidelines and apply them to the article. I believe that WP:ARTIST could apply here, but the subject of the article clearly does not meet the criteria (I can go into why she doesn't meet each one of the criteria if you would like me to, but I don't think that's necessary). She doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC because she is only notable for one event (WP:1E). She doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG because she has received "significant coverage" for only one event. She has received some coverage for other things (an article on her body modification, and an article on her Game Developer Help List) but not significant coverage (though she was the subject of the articles, so there is that). It seems pretty cut and dry to me that if the only references for this article were those related to the harassment issue, she wouldn't meet notability guidelines. Likewise, if the only references for the article were those not related to the harassment issue, I don't think that she would meet notability guidelines. I could certainly be wrong, but it appears to me that the two combined still don't meet notability guidelines. It seems to me that this is essentially the same as taking a WP:1E article, adding references to newspaper articles about the person winning events in high school track, and claiming that those articles make the person notable beyond the single event. With that said, I'm lacking in experience around these parts, so if I'm misinterpreting the notability guidelines, please correct me. Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * She passes the WP:GNG due to the variety of sources that have dedicated articles about her, and she passes WP:1E because she's received coverage for multiple different things:
 * Polygon covers her in significant detail in relation to harrassment.
 * Kotaku covers her in significant detail in relation to her having a computer chip put in her body.
 * Eurogamer covers her participation in "Game Jam" reality show.
 * Forbes (written by a Wired writer) wrote an article about her involvement with a new game called Framed
 * All four sources are deemed reliable by the relevant WikiProject at WP:VG/RS. All 4 sources cover her in significant detail. (And there are far more than just these 4.) This is what makes her pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:BIO/WP:ARTIST. (You'll note that BIO/ARTIST are part of "Notability (people)", which ultimately is based off of/answers to the GNG.) Sergecross73   msg me   00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sergecross73. Paisarepa (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources, such as the one from Edge, are from reliable sources and cover the subject in significant detail. The third party sources dedicated directly to her, make the article meet the WP:GNG. (Though the article needs a massive rewrite, I'll concede that.) Sergecross73   msg me   17:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Edge is indeed a reliable source. The article needs improvements but should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxFineArt (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yep, the article surely needs expansion, but even Serge's four sources above (EG not really about her, but the others...) adequately cover Quinn as an individual (sigcov) in regards apart from a single event. There is plenty in the sources to sustain a full article about her. czar ♔  19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources produced thus far seem sufficient to pass WP:BIO without falling into WP:ONEEVENT. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:09, 7 June 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.