Deletion of GamerGate

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  applies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Article is a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)

Comment: The space-filling sources are repeating gossip which need not be repeated on Wikipedia (). 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: fails  and . It can't possible follow Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENT)

Comment: Meets . Simple
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and . This is a made-up controversy designed to attack a single person. Although it has enough references to meet , I don't think we need to contribute to the harassment campaign by giving this media flash a permanent home
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: Per , this is covered in multiple reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 .  I can't really see any reason not to keep this article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: In this corner, our General Notability Guideline... In that corner, . It's a GNG pass
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: wikipedia is  and there is no indication this astroturf harassment campaign will be of any lasting significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: 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  and  is imperative, of course. Special:Contributions/93.172.61.72|93.172.61.72
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS)

Comment: Based on the reliable sourced presented by {{u|SuperHamster}} 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  abbuse, care must be taken in using quality sources when reporting criticism involving individuals in the gaming industry and press
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:BLP)

Comment: per  and comments by TheRedPenofDoom, also some  concerns after the skirmish with some editors curating this discussion and the Quinn page --Special:Contributions/5.81.54.112|5.81.54.112
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP)

Comment: This is a |recent hashtag campaign that has gotten some news coverage. |Wikipedia is not a newspaper.  is a better guide here than  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  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  and  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:EVENTS||WP:GNG||WP:BALL||WP:LASTING||WP:EVENTCRIT||WP:SENSATION||WP:V||WP:NPOV)