Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression Quest
While I am sympathetic in some ways to the goal of these multiple proposals (which I'll answer here to avoid redundancy), I don't like the fact that this strikes me as using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a proxy an attempt to control Wikipedia 'culture' (with all the positives and negatives the term carries).  BLP1E strikes me as inapplicable -- it does not demand that the event in question be "highly significant," merely "significant."  'Gamergate', as such, demanded coverage from many major sources, including the largest newspapers, websites, and television networks.  This is the outside world notability we look for.  Surely it meets the measure of 'sinificant,' even if I might agree it is not highly significant.  Each of the individuals here had a significant role (as measured by the RS), and thus the third prong of  is not met to my mind.  The fact that the gamergate area has become the subject of such vituperation is definitely not a good thing.  Perhaps there's an argument that for the good of the encyclopedia, these articles should be deleted.  But if that is the case, let's have that debate.  Don't cloak a providential suggestion about improving Wikipedia culture in a content guideline.  You say the articles are subject to far more attention than is demanded by the coverage.  I don't find policing others' Wikipedia interests particularly helpful.  We all know editors who spend far more time on minor articles than is "warranted."  I, for one, salute them.  Imagine, if you will, a dystopian future wherein 99% of edits on Wikipedia are to Pigasus (politics).  This would not in and of itself support the idea that Pigasus is not notable.  I would urge the nominator to disentangle the two strands of thought, because I find the content argument very weak
— User:Dumuzid, 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BLP1E (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)