Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectwhistleblower
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Flowerparty☀ 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Projectwhistleblower[edit]
- Projectwhistleblower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No evidence that this website or the alleged controversy generated by it is notable. Possibly a thinly-veiled attack article. Wikipedia is not a forum for muckraking. Kinu t/c 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lives are at literally at stake and this is a recent developing event. This article is important and should be kept. Catmin99 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please provide reliable sources indicating why this subject is notable. A blanket assertion that it is "important" is insufficient without some sort of evidence. --Kinu t/c 00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is current. Wikileaks has mentioned it and itwire have run two articles. wikileaks is notable, so the first clone, and scam one at that, is also notable. should the article be deleted and someone be taken in by the site and die or be imprisoned as a result, wikipedia may also find itself notable, Catmin99 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please provide reliable sources indicating why this subject is notable. A blanket assertion that it is "important" is insufficient without some sort of evidence. --Kinu t/c 00:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the two WP:SPA's (who I suspect are the same) that have spawned this article might think "lives are at stake", I think this is non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The news articles make this, well, a news item, and do not substantiate notability for an encyclopeia article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is too many "nots" to list. -- Atamachat 00:16, 27 June 2009 (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.