Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORCAleak


 * 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

ORCAleak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A minor incident during a local election, with no further reporting or repercussions (failing the events notability criteria). The article's name was "coined" by the author's postings on other websites, and is riddled with NPOV issues.  Sounder Bruce  23:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true I coined the name. However, there will be Washington State Senate committee hearings about the matter. As such there has been and will be, "further reporting" and "repercussions". There has been no attempt to correct the article's ALLEGED "NPOV issues". This is an attempt to sweep under the rug a serious breach of ORCA card data, against state law as documented in the ORCAleak posting. JosefAbraham 00:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

It is also unhelpful that this article is not able to be linked to the ORCA card page since this controversy/scandal arises 100% from the ORCA card. Hopefully SounderBruce will allow this once the suggestion for deletion is removed please. JosefAbraham 00:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a neologism created for political effect, and it's not in common use. The news story it refers to isn't notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not in common use but certainly meets WikiPedia standards of notability in that it's using reputable media sources and source documents plus is a serious incident leading to a Washington State Senate investigation. Read the whole article.  JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 16:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and Move In addition to the sources in the article, I found and  and, , , , , , , , , , , , , . Most of these are Washington State, but not all. Clearly extensive regional coverage and I think there is enough sustained coverage here to establish notability. Article needs a different name because "ORCAleak" is not used in the coverage. MB 04:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LASTING, the lack of recent sources indicates that the "scandal" had few, if any, lasting effects. The sources listed come from the initial findings (August 2016) and the report from the State Public Disclosure Commission (September 2016). No reporting in the lead-up to the election (November) or afterwards, amid other controversies related to the ballot measure over the last few months.
 * Also, several of the links are heavily biased against Sound Transit and transit agencies in general (ShiftWA and Washington Policy are conservative think tanks, Washington Times is a conservative-run newspaper), or are simply repeating reporting from The Seattle Times.  Sounder Bruce  04:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I searched for coverage and found 16 more. You discount a few because they are "conservative". Well, since most main-stream media has a liberal bias, showing there is coverage across a range of sources is a good thing. Whether this was an attempt to influence an election, or an "innocent" mistake may not yet be proven. But there are some clear facts - the email addresses were improperly released. Your disparaging comments about "conservative" sources suggests you may not be maintaining a NPOV. MB 15:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with MB. This doesn't need to be swept under the rug, it is an improper release of personal data about to go before public Washington State Senate hearings.  Either I stand for civil liberties and right of privacy when my favourite people violate it (e.g. Sound Transit) or not at all.  Sorry.  JosefAbraham JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 20:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, main-stream media would be nice to have in this case. But a conservative think tank is hardly an acceptable, NPOV source for something political like mass transit. Yes, the e-mail addresses were improperly released, but the lack of ongoing coverage shows how minute this is. Hardly worth a mention on the Sound Transit 3 page (where I added it months ago), and not worth a standalone article.  Sounder Bruce  01:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

To MB and SounderBruce, I would be open to "2016 ORCA E-mail Addresses Leak". Seems to be in with the nomenclature used on the Wikileaks page. The leak was repeatedly brought up in the many Sound Transit 3 debates until November. My goal is "just the facts" and not to spin the verifiable facts. Especially as there will be State Senatorial hearings into the matter -. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 04:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, new comment. I disagree and agree with  Sounder  Bruce .  First, I respectfully disagree "how minute this is" when there has initiated a State Senate investigation into ORCAleak or the inappropriate sharing of personal data from a database tracking personal movement, a clear violation of the right of privacy.  Second, I vote to keep this article so the facts are tracked as the State Senate Investigation comes into play - an investigation that at the appropriate time when the hearings are scheduled I will make a WikiPedia page about so we can track the facts and stop the spin.


 * Which brings me to where I agree with SounderBruce - namely think tanks of any time should be a secondary source at best on WikiPedia. I know Mrs. Mariya Frost of Washington Policy Center personally, she is at the least very anti-light rail and most of her pieces are to push a very sharp POV.  I cannot in good conscience cite Op-eds on a political scandal. JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 03:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  06:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC) I think the consensus could be that due to the press coverage and upcoming state legislative hearings, the article stays. With a new title and no citation links to the Washington Policy Center. Thoughts? JosefAbraham JosefAbraham 06:43, 13 June 2017 (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.