WP:Articles for deletion/GamerGhazi

:{{la|GamerGhazi}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GamerGhazi Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|GamerGhazi}})

Does not even come close meet WP:GNG. Strongjam (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Little to no RS coverage, even if [https://medium.com/@socialunjustice/how-gamerghazis-campaign-of-hate-nearly-ruined-my-life-8783ffd94b86 this] counts as a RS, but even if it does almost every other search result I found was a forum or blog (not reliable). Everymorning talk 02:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::Medium is a blogging platform, most everything found there is a self-published source. — Strongjam (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::Where is that sorse used on the article? AmericanEnki (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::It's not. {{u|Everymorning}} searched for sources and that was what they found. — Strongjam (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ec}}x2 Yes, that's correct, Strongjam. Everymorning talk 02:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Mergeanything of significance, if anything, to the main GamerGate article and redirect there. Artw (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:GamerGhazi is a completely seperate movement from GamerGate and therefore reserves its own pageAmericanEnki (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::But this article, as currently written isn't about GamerGhazi. The two sections in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGhazi&oldid=674019233 the revision I'm looking at] are GamerGate charity drives and the #NotYourShield hashtag which are not of significant relevance to GamerGhazi. Those are aspects of the GamerGate movement. (Discliamer; I've posted on both /r/GamerGhazi and /r/KotakuInAction). Metroid composite (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

::::* These issues belong in this article because they were direct responses to accusations be GamerGhazi. Since GamerGhazis is most notable for its accusations against GamerGate, It makes sense to include these issues. AmericanEnki (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

:: On further examination its a dumb stunt page so a straight up delete would be appropriate. Artw (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::Anything you consider to be a 'stunt?' Please identify.AmericanEnki (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Snow/Speedy Delete - not notable, per WP:GNG; concerns of WP:POVFORK. Any aspects which are verifiable, merge to Gamergate controversy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Change to Snow/Speedy - article has become a proxy battleground for POV pushers - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gamergate controversy as it is a possible search term, I suppose. But the current version of the article is an example of tendentious axe-grinding, cited to unreliable blog posts and Wikipedia itself, and has no encyclopedic content worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:GamerGhazi is currently at half the relevency as Brianna Wu and she recieves her own page. https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Brianna%20Wu%2C%20GamerGhazi&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4 AmericanEnki (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::We do not analyze Google search trends in order to determine whether or not a topic is notable, {{U|AmericanEnki}}. This is an encyclopedia (not Twitter or Reddit) that covers topics which have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Since you are a very new editor, it is understandable that you are not aware of that. The coverage of this topic in such sources is negligible at best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::Ok I seeAmericanEnki (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. It's halfway to being an attack page, and I can't find any reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable movement/web forum. It gets trivial mentions scattered through questionable sources on Google News, but that's not enough. Like Cullen328 says, I don't think there's any content here that's worth salvaging. I guess it could be redirected, but I probably wouldn't bother. See WP:42 for a quick run-down on our inclusion criteria. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:*What specifically do you find to be an attack? I will revise? what specific sources do you take issue with? I can revise.AmericanEnki (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::*The wording of the entire article is selected to paint the topic in a negative light, and completely lacks neutrality. The sources are mostly blogs including Reddit. That site is not a reliable source for anything whatsoever, except perhaps its date of founding, headquarters city, and current CEO, for the moment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::* It looks like Ryk cleaned up the worst of it. However, there are some problems you can't fix through editing, and notability is one of them. We need professional journalists to write articles about the topic; forum posts are not sufficient. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:::*Reddit URLS are only supplied to talk about the Reddit Squat (info about reddit site state EX. CEOS, Current mods) or to qoute a controversy that occured within a Reddit thread (Reddit users giving money to Wikipedia contibutor.) Even a broken source is useful twice a day AmericanEnki (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and maybe Redirect to Gamergate controversy if any reliable sources can be found which would justify talking about it there. I'm not able to find anything more than brief mentions in reliable sources and the current article is pretty clearly POV/OR, citing no reliable sources at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete While it is tied to Gamergate, there are no non-attacking RSes here to cover it objectively, and so should be avoided for the time being. That said, if the term does some up in a RSes in a manner to be described fairly, I think a redirect to summarize in the GG situation is appropriate. But not now. --MASEM (t) 03:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::*The RSes given are mostly direct, primary sources not hit or attack pieces.AmericanEnki (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:Understandable, wait for more coverage?AmericanEnki (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure what the larger travesty is: unsourced GamerGhazi page or the fact that the GamerGate page opens with GamerGhazi POV manifesto. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Merge into Gamergate controversy, fails notability guidelines. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Snow/Speedy Delete The vast majority of the sources used in this article don't even mention gamerghazi. The only sources that do are reddit threads. No coverage received, no need for a redirect. Brustopher (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• Snow/Speedy Delete From beginning to end, everything in this article is "not even wrong" (that is, it is really really wrong). There is no counter movement to GG called Gamerghazi. The only Gamerghazi is a subreddit with a few thousand subscribers. Even Reddit GG headquarters KotakuInAction doesn't have an article. Nothing to merge here, just delete, but enjoy the rewrite I did before it's gone. 98.210.208.21 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete / Snowball Delete / Are You Fucking Kidding Me Delete lol what even is this some idiot made a wiki page about being mad at a forum on reddit, jfc TiC ^(talk) 03:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Let's try to remain civil. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• That was entirely uncalled for. --ceradon (talk • edits) 05:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• It was up for barely a day with me being the only contributor of content. If the article had been given time to mature instead of being flag 2 hrs after the post then Im sure you would better understand what the article is about. AmericanEnki (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Wait, what? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia:Coatrack about Gamergate. It doesn't look like any of the sources currently used mention "gamerghazi" even once. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable WP:POVFORK from Gamergate controversy which is where any WP:DUE mention of countermovements should occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious WP:POVFORK of Gamergate controversy. Ghostwheel ʘ 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.