Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoë Quinn
and ban the nominator from GamerGate-related articles until he (I assume it's a he) shows some evidence of independent thought. The second AfD was speedy mostly because it tried to nominate too much stuff at once, but the first one was also a keep and she has only become more notable since. Clear pass of  (in-depth coverage in many highly reliable sources); notable for multiple things (game development, self-modification, being attacked, and launching an anti-harassment network). Poorly reasoned nomination statement advances many rationales that are not valid for deletion — What does "irrelevant for use" even mean? People with one game cannot be notable for other things? And "proven to be bias" sic is neither backed up with any actual proof nor something that should cause an article to be deleted: the proper response to biased articles is to base them more firmly on the consensus of reliable sources, something that has already long since been done here
— User:David, 03:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)