Talk:OpenLeaks

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2012. The result of the discussion was merge to Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Speedy deletion too speedy[edit]

Know what WikiLeaks is? OpenLeaks is a website being established by a group of people who defected from that site in September 2010. Plans for the site were announced at the time by former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who is also planning to publish a book in 2011 about the internal operations of WikiLeaks. If this page is not notable, I suspect Daniel D-B is and this info should be moved there. Kevin Saff (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search on google news returns 13,273 news articles on "openleaks". This includes articles in news media all round the world. It is hard to see how this level of prominence is below the threshold of importance for a Wikipedia article. --Pakaraki (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a significant website. It may become popular. it has resently made a lot of news ZyMOS (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This is going to be a significant website", hey, can I borrow your crystal ball? :P Lokpest (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this is major news and Google News is linking to this very article. I'll remove the CSD for time being, and once the dust settles the article can be nuked if this turns out to be a damp squib. Jpatokal (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if OpenLeaks is a complete flop, that would be notable in itself. --Pakaraki (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the defects concerning sourcing noted at the top of the Article page.

Also, OpenLeaks discussions, seminars, interviews, publicity, drop-box-protocol talk, anti-Assange gossip, etc. have been going on for months, but they still haven't pipelined anything to the media, as far as I've seen. I think the future focus of the article in the future would be references to actual leaked output to the media. Otherwise this article can serve for nothing than publicity for the organization. OpenLeaks has been aptly described as VaporWare.

I think this OpenLeaks 'article' should be removed by the summer, if the organization hasn't produced anything. JohndanR (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now late July, 2011, and Open'Leaks' has failed to produce anything whatsoever. They are still asking for donations, and are 'saying nothing with a great deal of skill.' It is patent vaporWare, and the WikiPedia entry for the organization should now be removed. JohndanR (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing doing. How long are we giving it? EardleyC (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political pressure: Civil versus criminal[edit]

What is the purpose of this section as a function of anything that OpenLeaks has actually done or experienced? Hammersbach (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section that I just deleted was really nothing more than a coat rack editorial. It had little or nothing to do with OpenLeaks save for an opening quote. Hammersbach (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLeaks.org vs OpenLeaks.net[edit]

The article says openleaks.net, but this newsstory (http://sync.sympatico.ca/news/wikileaks_rival_openleaks_coming_soon_website/9aa41551) says openleaks.org, both sites contain the same content. I guess we'll have to wait to figure out which site it is? Xxcom9a (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are probably both correct - it will very likely have multiple web addresses for the same reasons Wikileaks does. – mike@enwiki:~$ 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Corrected to openleaks.org (but openleaks.net also seems to be working)

Currently, the following alternate domains are available: openleaks.net, openleaks.rs, openleaks.ws [1]. These are donated (?) domains. The domain openleaks.org itself was registered on 17 September 2010, two days after the group left Wikileaks ([2] and DDB's book, German version, p. 270 and 302).KathaLu (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add content[edit]

Fellow wikipedians, the site was formally launched on 27 January 2011. Please help me develop this page by piecing together information from their website [3]. GreenEdu (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No new activity?[edit]

It looks like Openleaks never actually had any activity past january. Anyone have any information past january? Perhaps they're in "stealth-mode", for instance, getting set up. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still here?[edit]

I don't see the significance. They haven't done much.KF5LLG (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary and does not expire. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vapourware and hoaxes are not generally notable. Arguably, since DDB completely failed to deliver anything of substance, a merger to DDB main article may be appropriate. Bill Gates' personal homepage would not get a separate article either, even if there were press reports about it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]