Deletion of ArbitrationGate controversy

Comment: This is a neologism and clearly fails .  It has 5 Google hits.  I know that counting Google hits is not a sensible criterion in general, but for a topic like this which is completely internet-based, I'd be suspicious at 50000 Google hits.  For comparison, GamerGate gets over 5 million.  As many have mentioned, the sources are ridiculously lacking, and there is no credible claim of notability in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This is just silly and is about a clear case of  and mismanagement of  and . Also of note is that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Statement|ArbCom has released its own statement to specifically contradict the validity of the sourced material. There's no policy for this one-off matter but I'm inclined to believe a statement from ArbCom about Wikipedia matters than an external media outlet's opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NEO||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: this flash-in-the-pan silliness per , , , and others I'm sure. This tiny hiccup of coverage is hardly ongoing enough to write up into anything coherent or meaningful, and in fact these articles are already out-of-date, as the decision is still in progress and some votes are still moving around
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:RECENTISM||WP:POINT)

Comment: Obviously this just ''must'' be my internalised misogyny talking - but this is obviously |made to make a point and nothing else. The title isn't established and if we must have coverage of this, I agree that a footnote in the main subject's page is the only way to go about it. As someone said above, in a week this will probably be  regardless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This article exists only to |prove a point, and is nothing but a reaction to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Statement|ArbCom statement on the GG case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: Just silly and pretty much a textbook case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: This is just a  article. The first sentence is copied verbatim from the Gamergate article with the word "gamer" changed to "arbitration
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: per  and per plain SILLY. An  "article" about a non-notable neologism, presumably invented by the article's creator, and in turn based on one article in the ''Guardian'' written before the case had even ended and essentially consisting of quotes from the blog of one of the soon-to-be sanctioned editors. Said ''Guardian'' article was then reproduced by multiple non-notable sites creating the archtypical manufactured "controversy", followed by people shouting at each other on Twitter (as they do every day and all day over a myriad of things).  Per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)