Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Leakspin


 * 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   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 04:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Leakspin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recentism. An article about an organization that isn't. Only self-published sources used. Damiens .rf 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and Don't Merge. Operation: Leakspin's goal is to reinforce and protect and to bring more interest to the articles that Julian Assange has leaked on Wikileaks. Operation: Leakspin has been on the news countless times. Every Operation must be strictly embossed onto Wikipedia, never to be withdrawn (unlike most other companies). Operation: Leakspin isn't supposed to make an immediate impact. It's purpose is to preserve the articles for the world to see. It is a major phase in Anonymous's support for Wikileaks. Even now, there are hundreds of videos uploaded to YouTube of people reading summaries of Wikileaks documents, as a PART of this Operation. There has been an impact, it's just not meant to make large news. Operation: Leakspin is a small phase, yes, but it is still largely significant to this conflict between Wikileaks/Anonymous and the government(s)/companies. Do not delete this page, ever.


 * Delete: no indication of notability. --Neo139 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

off topic: it seems like everything vaguely related to wikileaks-matter is being stamped out nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.163.148 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * no deletion - information is relevant since it's closely related to the wikileaks-thingie, It's not an organisation (doesn't claim to be) but an initiative. Since the name leakspin is in the news it's usefull to have info on what it is, what its aims are.

I agree, don't delete, we need to improve this page, not destroy it, Operation: Leakspin has a larger background, and has done more than it is credited for on this page. do some research, and add to it instead of taking away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.90.226 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Question – What has Operation Leakspin accomplished so far? Operation Payback DDoS'd an unprecedented amount of websites. Significance is generally determined by the degree of impact or influence. Has Leakspin made an impact yet? I believe in what Leakspin is trying to achieve (freedom), but Wikipedia doesn't accept or reject articles based on how worthy the cause is. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As part of Operation Leakspin we have just started, however we will in time accomplish our goals. Deleting this page would hurt our efforts. In time, this operation will life off, and in the future it will have it's own page anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.185.15 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete, but expand the article, give it time. As this whole issue is one of openness and internet censorship it would be wrong to delete this page. Operation Leakspin is another facet of this developing event and forms part of the whole story. mulletsrokkify 21:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulletsrokkify (talk • contribs)
 * To IP users. I suggest you first to create an account. This article will probably get deleted. I just put a mirror here User:Neo139/Operation_Leakspin. In case the article gets deleted, feel free to continue editing there. Maybe the article shows notability in the future, and we can move it to the main section. --Neo139 (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

don't merge w payback, they're 2 different organizations. Leakspin hasn't DDoSed anyone, or had large protests, but they have helped spread wikileaks articles all over the internet, and are continuing to do so, they're the first example of peaceful hactivisim, which i believe is very not able Also, they have given birth to the idea of "crowd Journalism" (an idea worthy of it's own article) and their impact has drastically changed wikileaks format, from cables, to an easier to acess, simpler format closer to that of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.90.226 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has received a significant amount of coverage in multiple different secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article isn't about an organisation at all, it's about an event. It has clear sources that pass scrutiny at other articles. The articles does need expanding, but a nomination for deletion is premature. -- Iscariot (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Operation Payback - And if kept, rewrite so we don't sound like incompetent fools. CompuHacker (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @the anon above: See Wiki journalism, Participatory journalism, Collaborative journalism, and Wikinews. "Crowd journalism" is an old idea, and Operation Leakspin isn't the origin of such an idea. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable new development. If it comes to nothing it can be reconsidered and perhaps merged, but that's unlikely - for now keep.87.231.185.157 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Although this is likely the result of the hype surrounding WikiLeak, there is enough reliable news sources to warrant an article. I just hope that the article will eventually state Operation Leakspin's actions and impact rather than simply stating its goals. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please add these "reliable news sources" to the article. Currently, there is none. --Damiens .rf 12:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A simple Google search shows notability; I think a quick close WP:SNOW is appropriate as well. 69.137.88.166 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yug (talk)  08:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)




 * Strong Keep and Don't Merge. It is about a totally voluntary movement of rebeljournalism, that was actually Wikileaks original intent, which for some reason didn't happen. But now as Wikileaks is being seen as being attacked on all fronts, people have started to actually do what Wikileaks was meant to do in the first place, as envisaged by its founder(s). With absolutely no influence from Wikileaks but just from Anonymous, it seems. This situation in itself is an interesting enough phenomenon to argue as a case for keeping it. It is just fascinating to see that the future(Crowdjournalism&Wikileaks) that someone somewhere envisage/calculated, has in effect become reality(RebelJournalism&Wikileaks-LeakSpin). But the events that led to it were quite different from expected/calculated. As long as Wikileaks was functionable, people were satisfied to just appreciate it and say 'Bravo'. But once it found itself in a soup(unfairly), people from near and far have risen to the occasion. Fascinating enough to warrant mention somewhere.So its reference is need. In addition, it has already been useful to me, when I came to check it out over here. Since it was useful, its necessity has already been proven.  Why remove it?
 * Don't Merge - It has no similarities to Operation Payback. This originated as a long-term alternative to it. This is a totally non-violent form of not only showing support, but basically people forming a Reporter's Club and quite passionately involving themselves in it. Only those involved can properly document it, but I don't think this is in anyway similar to Payback. aruna (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. --Samer.hc (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obviously notable, as a significant phase of the so-called Operation Avenge Assange organised by Anonymous. Suggestions that this article breaches WP:RECENTISM are short-sighted and simplistic. That said, it needs improved referencing.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 09:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Knotrice (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge with Anonymous (group) It is information that will be looked up. As long as it can be kept neutral and without any self-promotion unlike its current format. I don't believe that it is shortsighted to consider this article to be in violation of WP:RECENTISM as it currently stands. --Travis Northrup (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - A search I performed on Google News today showed perhaps over 1,500 articles on "operation leakspin" - strong keep. Just add secondary sources like others here have said. --Maslowsneeds (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (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.
 * 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.