RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Gamergate

Timeline of Gamergate | Result: Kept (snowball clause)

Timeline of Gamergate (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Tl;Dr We already have a timeline on the main GG article, this articles existence is redundant besides to catalog every minute event, something we do not do to other much more wiki-elevant topics or even CP these days "Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep

1. Actually, this is one of the best articles on GG on the internet. It's (apparently) widely used by anti-Gamergaters. It's even been (sometimes) praised by KotakuInAction for how completely it documents events (albeit from the wrong perspective, according to them). Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
2. It is too detailed and well referenced an account to get rid of. If it is as widely used as FCP says then it is especially valuable to keep. As for its missionalality it seems to me to be a part of refuting the (relatively recent) pseudo history pushed by the GGer's (about their own movement and their opponents). I do not see it as redundant. SolPyre (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
3. It is ridiculously (a) well referenced (b) useful (c) missional: refuting a right-wing reactionary crank movement trying to use media lies. It is part of the detailed backing material on the subject. 7513 hits in November and 6816 in October, it's clearly useful to someone - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
4. Clearly, this article is important outside of RationalWiki. As such, it would be penny-wise and pound foolish to get rid of it. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
5. It is something that is needed to combat Gamergaters when they try to spin the truth and engage in history revisionism, which is incredibly common. As such, the site needs to keep it. I 100% agree with a point David made about the topic (albeit over a different article) here, and that kind of argument style is much easier to work with when you have a fully cited, extensive list of factual events at your disposal.- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
6. The Gamergate articles are good as long as many reasonable people also edit them. I find them impressive.---Mona- (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
7. I like it, it's comprehensive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
8. Very good reference; one of the best on the 'net. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
9. No substitute. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
10. If for no other reason than to keep the main Gamergate article semi-readable. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat

• Technically, this could just be moved to a WIGO:Gamergate archive page. Also, I'm surprised no one's nommed this before. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's 'cuz we didn't want the ensuing war with a certain somebody. Gooniepunk (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A WIGO gamergate would just get everything downvoted by the GG trolls. Bicycle^wheel 00:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, at this point it would just be an archive page. Adding those rating thingies to it all this time after the events occurred would just be silly anyway. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

• Ambivalent, is certainly not a good article, but it seems like a lot of work to just throw away. Reserve the right to change my vote if people make a good argument. Tielec01 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• 8:1. Can we call snowball clause? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  10:1 now. And probably. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

  Wait! Can't we at least get to HCM3 first? This has been no fun.---Mona- (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  Give me something to yell at you about! We can't keep agreeing with each other, it's unnatural! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  I'm afraid we must endure the tragedy of agreement because you are too much of an asshole to change your mind. (How's that?)---Mona- (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  BUWHAAAAAAAAAAT?! ME! AN ASSHOLE?! YOU KNAVE! YOU AND I MUST DUEL TO DECIDE THE TRUTH ON THE MATTER. LETHAL COMBAT IS THE ONLY OPTION. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  I see no reason not to close this vote. Gooniepunk (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)