Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:52, 9 September 2014

GamerGate

GamerGate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. ~SuperHamster 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. ~SuperHamster 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 6. —cyberbot I _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. --MASEM (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). --MASEM (t) 21:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @Masem: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 6 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  • @Thibbs: 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)
    • @Titanium Dragon: 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)
    • @Titanium Dragon: 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)
• KeepComment 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages as their own personal propaganda tool, and that's not what Misplaced Pages 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. --MASEM (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 | He cites it for free. 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. --MASEM (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 Misplaced Pages's front page was not neutral. Ramba Ral (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Masem's comments. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 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. - hahnchen 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete The space-filling sources are repeating gossip which need not be repeated on Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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. --MASEM (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)
• 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. LazyBastardGuy 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)
• Delete 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. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 7 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. --MASEM (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. —/Mendaliv//_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. —/Mendaliv//_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. --MASEM (t) 03:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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 | He cites it for free. 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. --MASEM (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 {{wikinews}} (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. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. This is why Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (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. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 8 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. KonveyorBelt 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 Misplaced Pages seems to accommodate for. Sceptre 23:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep but lock down tightly. Unfortunately, this has gotten too much coverage to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:38, 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates