Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLeaks

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 merge to Daniel Domscheit-Berg. The arguments brought foward supporting merging outweigh the arguments for straight retention here. --MuZemike 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLeaks[edit]

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

Because WikiLeaks was a big story at the time, the promised launch of OpenLeaks received international media coverage. However, following this, OpenLeaks completely disappeared without notice. The launch was promised (and the site still does) for January 2011 but nothing happened. Their blog has also not been updated since January 2011. Further, the wiki page does not contain any notable information to justify its existence. Information on OpenLeaks could be moved to Daniel Domscheit-Berg, its founder. Michael5046 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Domscheit-Berg per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLeaks is going through tests and general set-up delays - as you can see from this recent video, things are (slowly) coming together - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz90_9f6NS8 - I don't think this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.137.55 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the end of the day, OpenLeaks only exists as an announcement/promise with no results as of yet. There is nothing on the wiki page that justifies a page for OpenLeaks, and it can easily be moved to Daniel Domscheit-Berg who is the website's founder. The new interview is irrelevant because it is yet another promise (like the one in 2010). Also see WP:CRYSTAL, if they have something significant in the future, an article can still be created.Michael5046 (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And change any and all policies that might have been used to justify deletion; if they are relevant at all to this case, it should be considered a failure case requiring a bug fix to the policies. The part of WP:CRYSTAL on product announcements is justifiable essentially only as protection against disguised spam, which this is not. Even if OpenLeaks never becomes active, the announcement will always remain relevant as an enduring part of the wider history of WikiLeaks. It will be searched for under its own name, not under the name of the founder; general information about him is unlikely to be of interest or use to those searching for OpenLeaks info. More generally: give up deletionism as a general philosophy. Wikipedia has become much less useful since deletionism and "notability" became entrenched. I can't count the times I've looked for missing articles that ought to have been there, or had to spend time (as now) defending the existence of a useful article when it should have been totally uncontroversial.

Neuromath (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Merge to its founder on the basis that the website hasn't shown any continuing cultural or social importance, which is a general principle of wikipedia notability for media and organisations. WP:WEB says "if a notable person has a website, then the website does not 'inherit' notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person." --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not revoked, there is a serious misreading of what WP:CRYSTAL says: something can not exist but have achieved notability. Even vaporware has articles if they meet GNG, which this does. If any merger happens it should be because a proper merge discussion in the article, not deletion discussion. Thius should be closed as no consensus, and let a proper merger discussion happen in the article. As it stands, this smells like forum shopping.--Cerejota (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - while it's very true that notability is not temporary, even a notable subject can have insufficent information available to make a reasonable article about it. As a failed project, this is best dealt with by merging into the article on its (attempted) founder, with a redirect to the section of the article the contento on OpenLeaks is in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - For some perspective: there were deletion discussions for Bitcoin, and this thing doesn't even exist yet! prat (talk) 20:39, 16 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.