Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Sarkeesian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Kept per WP:SNOW, plus the fact that this looks like an unnecessary procedural nomination due to the fact that the nominator immediately !voted to keep. Steven Walling • talk 23:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Sarkeesian

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a concern that this article does not meet GNG. I hope we can get a resolution to this. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SNOW. Every sentence is attributed to a WP:RS. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I outlined my reasoning here. While it's possible somebody would cite WP:1E as a reason not to keep, I believe the existence of this interview, conducted prior to the recent controversy, demonstrates that the notability lies with the woman and not with the event. -Pete (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed that WP:SNOW 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 WP:BLP1E concerns. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contra what might be suggested by WP:1E, note 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 WP:PEOPLE, 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 Gamespot, Wired, The Guardian, and Salon among others. --Chronodm (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Traegorn (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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 WP:1E 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.Euchrid (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with outlook for SNOW - she was minor but still arguably notable before the twits hit the fan; now she's one of the best-known scholars in the field. The attacks (mostly anonymous) on the talk page of the article are pretty nasty boomerangs. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.