Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikileaks

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. This is either a user who is unfamiliar with wikipeida notability guidelines or it's a sockpuppet of some kind. I'm going to declare this a snowball in hell and end the debate early. If any regular wikipedia editor disagrees, contact me on my talk page and I'll re-open it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikileaks

Wikileaks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

non notable website, alexa traffic rank 414,669.[1] T-y-g3 03:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Very strong keep I've never heard of Wikileaks, but judging by the incredible amount of in-depth third-party coverage from highly reliable sources, maybe I'll start hearing more about it soon. Easily passes WP:WEB per independent coverage. -- Kicking222 03:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the nominator has zero edits aside from creating this AfD, so while I will certainly attempt to assume good faith, it's a bit difficult. -- Kicking222 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Clear notability established. Also, nominator may be a throw-away SPA account. No other edits but this nom. F.F.McGurk 03:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notability established and verified; may be a bad-faith nomination. JRHorse 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Featured on slashdot today (or yesterday?) --froth^{T C} 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Today. F.F.McGurk 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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.