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 Speedy Keep. AFD is not the correct venue for POV or cleanup issues with an article. Ryan Norton 19:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Sexual harassment in video gaming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Heavily one sided, Voting for the article to be recreated as currently it seems to me to be unsalvageable. Article presents one sided view that sexism is rife in the industry and has no counter argument. Article also reads like a personal essay. Retartist ( talk) 06:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The notability of the topic, which is amply attested in the cited reliable sources, is not contested. Deletion is not cleanup, and the nominator has not edited the article and has not made any proposal for how the article could be made, in their view, more neutral. No policy-based grounds for deletion exist.  Sandstein  07:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - notability not in question. Want to re-write the article? I won't stand in your way. Best way to do that would be to propose such an effort on the article talk page and start working collaboratively with other editors there. Not really a WP:TNT situation, this one. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 07:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - as the topic is thoroughly well documented in reliable sources. Retartist, Articles for deletion is the wrong venue to solve problems with the way articles are written; deleting an article is related to the relevance of the topic at independent venues, not the way Wikipedia editors have covered it (you'll hear old-timers saying "deletion is not clean-up"). Problems with the neutrality of presentation are dealt by improving the article with other points of view. If you have references that support a different narrative, please show them at the article's talk page so that they can be discussed. Diego ( talk) 08:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Since when do we clean up articles by deleting them? Kaldari ( talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Clearly meets GNG just from the sources given in the article. Many more RSes exist on the clearly notable topic. - Thibbs ( talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This is not the venue to solve POV problems with articles. Axon ( talk| contribs) 11:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Merge to gender representation in video games. It might seem like a long shot with all these keep votes, but there are sections in that article that relate mostly to this. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• No, these are distinct topics - how women gamers are treated by other gamers has nothing to do with how women are represented as characters in games, even though both relate to general societal phenomena such as sexism.  Sandstein  14:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, move - Telling a woman to get in the kitchen is not "sexual harassment", it's sexist, and it could be harassment. The article does cover some instances of sexual harassment, but this is clearly not the main subject of the article. This should be moved to Harassment in video gaming or Online harassment in video gaming depending on its scope ( Sexism in video gaming is another possibility, but that already redirects to Gender representation in video games). Would it not be confusing to do so in the middle of an AFD, I would have boldly moved it myself. - hahnch e n 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Those are good calls, though they would better be addressed at the talk page with a move request. Diego ( talk) 12:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep - Not only from most reasons above, but based on nom's contributions, this appears a POINTy nom (user has been critical of gamergate-related coverage). -- MASEM ( t) 13:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Snow keep. Clearly adequate sourcing to keep. I tend to agree with Hahnchen and Diego that the naming is somewhat awkward and misleading. I also believe this is a pointy nomination as mentioned by Masem above. BusterD ( talk) 14:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep but clean-up. This article is not nearly problematic enough to justify a nuke and pave. Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 17:08, 8 September 2014 (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.