RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Anita Sarkeesian

Anita Sarkeesian | Result: Keep

Anita Sarkeesian (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. More YouTube drama about someone that hasn't been relevant or missional for almost a decade. Most of her recent work gets 3k views on YouTube, sometimes even less. Paraphrasing Circ, we're not TwitterDramaWiki [. GeeJayK (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
2. We have other articles that cover the missional elements in depth, and the article talkpage has become a magnet for a terminally online user who literally refuses to engage with others or provide primary sources. I'm sick of being one of the only users actually on the talkpage engaging with this shit, and would rather nuke the article than continue to deal with this stonewalling nonsense. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
3. I think it should be subsumed under Gamergate article. Who cares about AS? UncleKrampus (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
4. I think she is notable enough, but the frequent "citation needed" tags and overall not great quality combined with the fact she isn't very notable pushes me into weak delete territory.Gale5050 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   @Gale5050 There's only two citation needed tags. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   Oh. Gale5050 (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

   Random Youtuber. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   @Gale5050, the fact that you would rather delete the page rather than fix it, plus your home page that simply states, "A user who just lurks RW:AFD." (User:Gale5050), plus your talk page User talk:Gale5050 that shows a shitload of stupid, together these indicate that you are just here to destroy and/or cause trouble. It's up to you to prove otherwise. Oh. Bongolian (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

5. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. I don't know if "not reverent" is a good argument as she made news in the Washington Post in 2020. IMHO the main problem with the article is any attempt at rational criticism is non existent and instead we get an article the is so one side it might as well be a Euclidean plane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   @BruceGrubb MAYBE IT WOULD FUCKING HELP IF YOU FUCKING ENGAGED LIKE NORMAL FUCKING PERSON!!!! I ASK FOR PRIMARY FUCKING SOURCES AND EVERY FUCKING TIME I DO YOU IGNORE MY REQUESZT AND GO RADIO SILENT, BEFORE SHOWING UP WEEKS LATER TO BITCH ABOUT THIS ONE FUCKING SUBJECT!!! I LITERALLLY CAN NOT BRING MYSELF TO FUCKING CARE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT ANYMORE AND AM ONLY FUCKING ENGAGING OUT OF A GRIM SENSE OF FUCKING DUTY TO TREAT YOU WITH SOME BASIC LEVEL OF COURTESY!!! I LITERALLY JUST WANT YOU PUT UP OR SHUT UP, AND DO NOT CARE WHICH YOU DO ANYMORE!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   Given you are yelling a person with a recognized disability (ADHD with some recently diagnosis high functional autism) you are not helping your case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   @BruceGrubb Are you illiterate as well? What part of I'm tired of dealing with your crap do you not understand? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2. Number of YouTube views per video is not a valid reason for removing an article; she's not a "YouTube" personality. This subject has always been controversial because of the gamergate/alt-right aspect and will probably always attract highly polarized and contentious discussion. That's no reason to delete the article, either. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   @Cosmikdebris As the article itself points out, she's only a household name (on certain parts of the internet) because of the GamerGate stuff. And, further, hers was only one corner of an overall shitstorm, which as I pointed out, is covered in broader detail on the relevant articles. If you wanted to we could probably make a subsection for her on the Main GamerGate article. Would that satisfy your requirements? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   The "Criticisms" section can be significantly pared down from its present state. The "claims/response" presentation is rather verbose and much of the content can be summarized better and moved to other articles. The main Gamergate article is very large already and I still think Sarkeesian deserves an article of her own here. Her article can be trimmed of a lot of its Gamergate cruft. Back when Gamergate was a raging hot issue we had a couple of editors banging out giant walls of text documenting every single little detail, which in retrospect several years later appears to have too much irrelevant internet drama. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 19:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   I’ll sit this one out personally as I’ve managed to avoid learning too much about gamergate, but it does seem a merge would make more sense than straight up deletion. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

3. It's a high-quality article. Allegedly becoming less relevant shouldn't be a cause for deletion. People forgot about Julius Evola for decades until the alt-right started regurgitating him. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   Regurgitated Anita Sarkeesian? How did she taste the first time?.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   @Bongolian I'd like to direct you to the same compromise I offered Cosmikdebris. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   Ordinarily, that would be a good compromise, but since both pages are well-written and lengthy, I don't think so. Bongolian (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

4. She is still a well known boogeyman for the anti-feminist types, so she's still relevant. Plutocow (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
5. Not even remotely irrelevant? She's somewhat of a legacy subject but she's like, definetly important enough to not warrant purging her from the wiki. If there's a bunch of dumbfuckery on edits and talkpages, perma-protect the thing. Jeez. Techpriest (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
6. Keep. Wow. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
7. Subject matter is certainly not "just" YouTube drama, wtf!!?? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

   I do find it astounding that people think that a silver brainstar article is worth deleting. It would probably be the first such case. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs}

8. Changed vote after talking to Sirius on Discord. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
9. Weak keep. I would be open to merging into Gamergate or something, but not outright deletion. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
10. Seriously? Just because time moved on doesn't mean the article isn't relevant or else we wouldn't have all those historical articles. Tuxer (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
11. In many ways, Sarkeesian *is* just a random Youtuber. A random, actually kind of minor at first glance (only 6K subscribers for Feminist Frequency in 2011 according to archive.org) Youtuber that mainly happens to actually be notable because various asshat anti-feminist communities blew things up into a shitstorm, to the point where lots of major national news was made. So, way to Streisand effect things, anti-feminist Gamergate ass-hats! I'd support a merge effort to Gamergate to cut the "heat of the moment" crud, but I don't support lazy AfD nominations to avoid work. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
12. Still very missional. Deleting it so GC doesn't have to go on pointless debates with a concern troll doesn't seem valid in the least. Rockford the Roe ^{boop my snoot}_{praise Oscar Wilde} 04:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Point of order. I am not a concern troll. I genuinely believe in the issues I raise - factual wrong/misleading examples hurts the position. Heck, that was a key part of a course I took back in the 1990s at NMSU as part of my anthropology degree. Sure as Archive3 of the talk page shows I can get rambly but that very same point was raised by others long before I got to the article. If anything I am seeing "concern troll" becoming an Ad Hominem. This from Stop Calling Me a Troll sums it up best "What if all these people aren’t trolls? What if they’re just, you know, disagreeable or stupid or merely wrong? What if, despite holding opinions that you don’t like, and despite expressing those opinions in a manner that seems a tad impolite, they came by their views honestly?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

13. — Oxyaena ^Harass 05:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
14. Kind of weak "Keep".Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
15. I know it's late, but it's such a long and good article to be deleted. Exaskliri (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)