Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

:{{la|Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak}})

This article is a fork of United States diplomatic cables leak and was originally created a week ago but for a lack of agreement on this action it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak&action=history soon converted to a redirect]. Discussion about having this fork was discussed at Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak but no consensus developed for the split-off. It has been argued that the parent article is becoming too large (169kb prior to the split-off) and one editor therefore made the unilateral decision to reinstate the article fork with the amazing edit commentary "Sorry folks, but this needs to be brought under control), indicating some sort of emergency procedure having to be made, assumedly as the rationale for omitting to obtain a mandate from other editors. It should also be mentioned that there are strongly conflicting opinions on the parent article's talk page about what strategies to pursue in going forward covering the ongoing diplomatic cables leak situation. I would like to point out that adding one more layer for the casual user to have to click makes the information on this issue increasingly less available. Already we have the situation that with the current diplomatic leak story being daily in the news headlines across the globe, 20 times as many people only go to the WikiLeaks page as go on to United States diplomatic cables leak (500k hits vs 25k hits). That should raise a huge warning sign that continued diffusing this information comes at a considerable cost. meco (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and convert to prose or change the focus of the contents. Before splitting, the parent article was 166,177 bytes and growing exponentially, as only 1000 out of more than 250,000 documents had been released to date. Clearly, something needed to be done, and discussion on the page with various editors, including User:Nergaal, User:Lihaas, and others, show that there is a concern for readability and management of a random list of contents growing exponentially, a herding cats problem with no end in sight. After the split, the article is now a healthy 44,000 bytes, and while it needs a great deal of work and improvement, it is actually readable. Meco has all but ignored the discussion on the talk page, preferring to keep expanding a 166,000 byte document without any regard to what other editors are saying to him on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and convert to prose or change the focus of the contents. Although this move was not yet agreed upon by other editors, it does not change the fact that it was done with the intent of compliance with general Wikipedia guidelines regarding article length. Furthermore, this also does not constitute a reasonable argument for having the move reverted until consensus has been agreed upon, especially while other options are available for handling the child content. Exercising good judgement is encouraged on Wikipedia, and the move to separate the articles arguably has an immediate impact of making the related content more accessible to the general public, especially to users who may find the enormous scope of the former length of the parent unmanageable, or others wishing to contribute to or disseminate related content while utilizing a narrowband internet connection. It's my own personal opinion and recommendation that the separation remain, and the proposal for deletion of this article be removed. Further talk of organizing this child article can be proposed on the child article's talk page. To revert the change at this point, given the enormous priority and status of this article as a major current event, would ultimately prove to be counter-productive and confusing to readers, and serve no other purpose than to uphold bureaucratic procedures that undermine Wikipedia's community as adhering to common sense principles. --Glitch82 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see a valid reason to delete. Claiming that the info needs to be kept in what would be an excessively long main article in order for people to find it is not a valid rationale. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep No policy-based reason for deletion. Having this kind of detailed sub-articles is the best way to maintain both depth of coverage and readability. --Cyclopia^talk 17:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Haven't heard any better proposal so far. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Significantly noteworthy and extremely worth of its own, separate, independent, and very well sourced and referenced page. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There should be an article discussing the contents, in addition to the article giving the history of the source, releasing, publication, reactions, and governmental retribution against Assange. The text of the cables might be provided at Wikisource, unless that could be prosecuted as "espionage" on the same basis US politicians want Assange prosecuted. (This is an observation and clearly not a legal threat). Edison (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep But also give the main article a significantly condensed version of this. If not possible, then merge with United States diplomatic cables leak‎ - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I move to speedy keep the article, i.e. withdrawing my nominations. I see that we can work this out in constructive ways without going through this AfD which also doesn't seem to be going in any other direction anyway. __meco (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of material. In fact, this may merit more region-specific forks as more cables are released... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - I was the person who performed (and subsequently undid) the initial split. The concerns some contributors raised over the timeliness of splitting this content were certainly compelling to me, but I personally foresee the fork as being an inevitable eventuality that will receive resounding support once the public interest dies down. Ultimately, either way, redirection would be preferable over deletion and so this should be handled at an editorial level.   — C M B J   22:26, 8 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.