Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organized crime and corruption reporting project


 * 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. L Faraone  04:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Organized crime and corruption reporting project

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable journalism center Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Not true - obviously you don't follow this area closely. This is the hottest thing going in non-profit journalism -- they pioneered collaborative work and they are being copied everywhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcomet (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - appears to be a notable investigative journalism group with awards won; reasonable number of archived GNEWS hits from WP:Reliable sources for "Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project" and "OCCRP", in English and in other languages. I'll try to improve the references. Invitrovanitas (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I've added a number of online sources indicating notability. More can probably be found: I'll flag this one for Article Rescue. Invitrovanitas (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —Invitrovanitas (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Invitrovanitas (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   squeal 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news archive search shows its a notable enough organization to have its reports quoted by major news organizations. They consider them to be experts on this.   D r e a m Focus  04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are obviously there.  wp:before should be followed by nom next time, I would suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 13 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.