Talk:Syria Files

Notability
Mentions in the media doesnt mean notability. I can show you hundreds of articles in the media that are far from notworthy. This is not wikinews and notability is not adjudged by NOTNEWS. The two paragraphs here can easily fit into the list of wikileaks realeses as a subsection. Because its terms with a proper noun does NOT mean its independent article noteworthy enoughLihaas (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that an early two-paragraph version of this article be included as a subsection of Information published by WikiLeaks rather than claiming that the information itself is not notable. The notability of WikiLeaks and the Syrian uprising (2011%E2%80%93present) have been well-established in the Wikipedia by each consisting of a whole series of related articles. The international mainstream media have chosen to focus attention on the link between the two via the Syria Files. IMHO the only serious question is whether this should constitute a subsection of Information published by WikiLeaks or not.


 * The Information article presently has 6 main subsections, together divided into 31 subsubsections (and one subsubsubsection), and is 85 kb long. The  is 14 kb long, which would bring the total length up to about 100 kb, which would imply that it needs to be WP:SPLIT.


 * If you really think that we should merge this article into Information published by WikiLeaks, then please propose that, but IMHO your proposal would be closed by WP:SNOWBALL. There have been no claims that the 2-million emails claim is false, and only a few dozen emails have been published so far. We can't predict the long-term significance of the Syria Files, but there's no point merging now, making a long article even longer, and having to split the material out again in a week or so.


 * Does anyone object to removing the notability tag? Boud (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 11 secondary sources - I'll remove the tag for the moment. IMHO a merge proposal might make sense in a few weeks' time, if the RS'd content has not increased by too much. Boud (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Good
Now, WikiLeaks does good in the eyes of the government.

Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)