Deletion of Anita Sarkeesian

Comment: WP:SNOW. Every sentence is attributed to a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Plenty of legitimate coverage, and I have a bit more that I'll add when I get a chance. I understand why people might consider  to apply, but I would point out that the article existed for roughly a year prior to the video games controvery, and Sarkeesian was still getting press and video hits, albeit far fewer than she is now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: Contra what might be suggested by , note Wikipedia:Notability#Events|WP:N: "Notability of a contraversial entity (such as a book) could arise ''either'' because the entity itself was notable, ''or'' because the controversy was notable as an event." Ms. Sarkeesian is clearly a "contraversial entity." Per , Ms. Sarkeesian is the subject of multiple published reliable, independent secondary sources: KUOW, Sewanee U., Escapist, Slate, New Statesman, Digital Trends (referenced in the article), also http://www.gamespot.com/features/from-samus-to-lara-an-interview-with-anita-sarkeesian-of-feminist-frequency-6382189/ Gamespot, http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/ Wired, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/jun/14/women-sexism-games-sarkeesian-tyler The Guardian, and http://www.salon.com/2012/06/14/lara_croft_battles_male_jerks/singleton/ Salon among others
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E||WP:PEOPLE)

Comment: Agreed that  will likely apply. Not really sure whether this sort-of-procedural nomination was necessary at all, but I suppose it's a case of better safe than sorry. Anyway, none of the arguments made for deletion on the talk page are grounded in Wikipedia policy; and the evidence of notability that existed prior to March 2012 rules out  concerns. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:BLP1E)