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 SPEEDY DELETE per WP:SNOW and WP:CSD#G11 blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting other websites, which is very clearly what this article is doing. Virtually all of the policy-based statements below favor deletion per WP:NOT and WP:LINKFARM. A great majority of the keep comments originate from single purpose accounts, quite possibly canvassed to appear here by the subject organization or its supporters. I'll also cite WP:IAR and WP:BATTLE: this discussion is quickly drifting into the realm of a useless battle. It will serve no useful purpose, and most likely lead to more disruption, if continued. There is no point in generating additional heat that sheds no further light on the matter. Regardless of what the rules say about discussion lengths, we do not need to continue a useless or disruptive discussion when the result is already clear. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of WikiLeaks mirrors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is unnecessary to list all of the sites mirroring wikileaks. that not Wikipedia is and besides wikileaks give other wikis a bad name. JDDJS (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:LINKFARM. In addition, a list such as this is very hard to keep updated. jonkerz♠ 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LINKFARM. Whether Wikileaks give Wikipedia a bad name or not (I think they don't), is irrelevant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of the list is to make sure anyone visiting the main wiki-article about WikiLeaks can easily find a working link to the WikiLeaks website (so this isn't a linkfarm). The editors at the main WikiLeaks page have decided that it is ok. to give some links to mirrors, so there isn't an issue about giving Wikipedia a bad name, according to the Wiki-community (despite WikiLeaks being controversial). Then since the mirrors don't have a long lifetime, and the big lists of mirrors in found on the mirrors themselves, it may be difficult for readers to actually find a working mirror. So, that's why I created this list and then linked to this list from the small list of mirrors on the main WikiLeaks wiki-page. Other media outlets also have lists of mirrors, but these are not so comprehensive and they are obviously the main targets of the people who want to close down WikiLeaks. Maintaining this list is then also not so difficult, precisely because you're bound to find some mirror sites that work and they will have updated information on the active mirrror sites. Count Iblis (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already two links to mirror sites in the infobox, it is better for people off-wiki to maintain these. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a "media outlet". This is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under normal circumstances we wouldn't need a big list of mirrors. The issue now is that, because of a dedicated attempt to bring down all the WikiLeaks sites (at least those that are the easiest to find), it may be difficult even give a few working links in the infobox in the near future. Tomorrow, Obama may declare that WikiLeaks gives material support to terrorism and then Google will stop indexing WikiLeaks mirrors and remove WikiLeaks search results, major news organizations will stop publishing lists of mirrors and most governments will close down WikiLeaks mirrors promptly. A cat and mouse game will then follow, the list of mirror sites will mutate so fast that you won't be able to keep track of the mirror sites and even give one working link in the main article's infobox.

    However, if we have a big list of links here, one can always take a few of these and put them in the infobox. If they don't work anymore, all you have to do is take some others from the list. Meanwhile this list will be maintained using any one of the working mirrors and take the mirror list from that one. This way the Wikipedia community can maintain the list and make sure there are always a few working mirrors listed in the infobox, even if all the governments decide to crack down hard on WikiLeaks and everything moves underground. And that without Wikipedians having to spend a lot of efort to dig up these mirrors which by that time would be hard to find (compare e.g. to Al-Qa'ida websites) Count Iblis (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Couldn't this be achieved by posting the links on the talkpage of the wikileaks article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It kinda already is - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong/Speedy Keep: The FBI and other authorities who try to shut down any iteration of Wikileaks could find this list of mirrors quite useful. Otherwise, they'll be in for a longer wild goose chase.

  It's also a double-edged sword in that anyone who avidly reads Wikileaks would find any of these mirrors useful in the event that the main Wikileaks shuts down. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a linkfarm. WP:ITSUSEFULL applies. DC T•C 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LINKFARM and WP:LISTCRUFT. In addition, if the real WikiLeaks site goes down, the mirrors wouldn't work right either, would they? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sure this is useful, but Wikipedia is not a repository of external links.—Chris!_c/t 07:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Serves no encyclopedic value, however useful it may be, it is not a reason to keep it. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As linkfarm. Andjam (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I could think of many reasons for not deleting ths page but perhaps the most cogent would be 'Freedom of the Press'. people should be fforded the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to read the contents of the WikiLeaks site not the US Government. Eog1916 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Keep unless you believe that a North Korea type of censorship should be the norm.Eog1916 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't trying to censor anything, but there is no reason why we should have this list any more than a list of other website's mirrors. SmartSE (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For most other pages of links, I would agree with the above comments regarding it being a link-farm and so forth. There are many Wikipedia entries regarding websites. In all of these cases, it is sufficient to place a single link to that website in the relevant article (see eBay for example). Obviously, while this may be desirable, it is not possible in the case of Wikileaks. I think the benefits of providing a link to the website (or a mirror) outweighs the cost of having a page of links. I think an article in an encyclopedia should value keeping the most relevant reference above considerations of layout and linkfarms. As for any arguments as to whether Wikileaks should exist at all, I find that as irrelevant as most authors above me. Timbo76 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Timbo76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy delete - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because per WP:NOTLINK this does not merit its own article. We already have a huge list here on the article's talk page. This should be sufficient for users wanting to "take a few of these and put them in the infobox" Note:I meant to put in my reason. Slipped my mind - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I edited the article to remove unsourced content (which happened to be every item on the list). We can't list mirrors without a reliable source stating that the site is indeed a mirror and not a scam site set up to fraudulently take donations, or a data-gathering site or whatever. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia's mission is to bring knowledge to the masses. WikiLeaks is a site with a similar mission. Keeping this list, at least until the controversy dies down, fulfils the missions of both. Keep it at a resource until WikiLeaks has a stable domain. Orismology (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Orismology (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You may wish to read WP:NOT so you can see why that argument is not going to hold much weight. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I would also be satisfied if this list is integrated in the Wikileaks article. Anyhow, besides freedom of press, it's also something that really keeps the world busy. So how it is saved I don't really care, just as long as it IS! Robster1983 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The internet seems a good place to find out about wikileak mirrors, why should a list be included in an encyclopedia? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a linkfarm, nor a soapbox. Take political advocacy efforts elsewhere. Ray^Talk 14:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note at the moment, it isn't even a list of mirrors... I'll add what is there into the wikileaks/cables article. SmartSE (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP --- I Am Not An American NEONAZI, Who Else Would Want It To Be Deleted ? --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • What? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Wikipedia's goal is free access to information. So Wikipedia should facilitate access to free information - especially, if it is endangered and being fighted by governments and other forces. What's more, this is a historic example of how the web fights back. Even if the list of mirrors will not get updated forever, it should be kept for historic and encyclopedic purposes - to show, what happened on this planet's communication infrastructure within a few days. Ds77 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not Wikipedia's goal to provide every piece of information that existed. Note that there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. Mere collections of external links is one of them.—Chris!_c/t 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . Usually this kind of article would be deleted but I believe given the fact that is a highly notable event it should be kept. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• MUST Keep . I always thought wikipedia is more than encyclopedia!, I visit wikipedia for latest news and events not news sites....here things are updated and kept upto date and sources are public edited so trustable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.89.148 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's wrong on so many points it's hard to know where to start, but you can start by visiting n:Wikinews:Newsroom and noting that the place that really is a news service has four Wikileaks news stories in development right now. This project is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification I just want to clarify that I didn't nominate this just because WikiLeaks give wikis a bad name. I just meant that as more of a side note. But on that note, with all of the legal issues involving WikiLeaks, this page can cause harm to Wikipedia. Again that's not the main reason why it should be deleted but just additional reasons. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Do You Feel The Need To Justify Yourself ? No One Believes You Anyway --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:A41202813@GMAIL.COM, don't make this personal - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • --- I Am Sorry, But I Feel That Freedom Is At Stake Here, And This Is A Turning Point In History, Of Course It Is Personal, Only Gangsters Say That It Is Never Personal --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you actually trying contribute to this discussion, or are you just bored and decided to spam this? Because that what it seems like. JDDJS (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article has been improved, but it needs some help in expanding some topics. If the subdomains section is so huge, I think that it can be blanked. I'm not sure if having a large list of links is useful, but the topic is interesting, it is a real example of Streisand effect. emijrp (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Must KEEP. This article is more than just a set of links. It already looks more professional. Apart from the fact that this looks better now, it can be a historical record of what happened at this point in history. And once the decision to keep this article is made, other tangential information, that may not be suitable to go into the main Wikileaks article, can be put in this one to make it even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.165.207.2 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.165.207.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • That is not the project's scope. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source historical record. If history isn't already recorded outwith Wikipedia, it doesn't get to be recorded firsthand within Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above comment. -Abhishikt 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
  • Then you don't understand the project scope, either. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not mere collections of external links --Cybercobra (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Look at all those pretty links that don't belong here! WP is not a collection of links, as has already been pointed out above. Netalarm^talk 04:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list provides info on the mirror sites. Wikipedia is a repository of info, and this is valuable info, so deleting this would be like deleting the USA page. 99.253.222.228 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.253.222.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG. linkfarms just create more a bigger mess to maintain. The urls are not stable to be useful. --Visik (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Politically motivated deletors offering the spectacle du jour of spastic hurling of WP rules at the wall, hoping one will stick. Links bad -vs- links won't work. Which is it? One of them at least is an invalid argument: there are 1005 mirrors, so many links can be broken and the article is still useful. After that said, I cease to care. Keep on screwing up WP, it just makes the places I left WP to work on look better. Anarchangel (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the relevant policy here at all? DC T•C 08:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to totally fail at assuming good faith. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please, those who say that this deletion proposal is censorship, must help to improve the article adding data. Those who say that the list is only a farm link, must re-read the article, now, it contains a lot of information, not only links. Also, we can remove the subdomains section and leave only the top level domains. If needed, we can convert this article from "List of WikiLeaks mirrors" into "WikiLeaks mirroring efforts" or something like that, with more literature. emijrp (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your efforts would be better directed adding to WikiLeaks#After the US diplomatic cables leak which I anticipate will soon split into it's own article regarding attempted censorship and attempts to combat it. There have been no arguments to keep here beyond WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL so unless a new argument comes up, it is likely that this will be deleted. Simply copying press releases and a list of mirrors doesn't make an encyclopedia article. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• HOW BIASED CAN YOU GET ? "X has made few or no other edits outside this topic".

Why Is That Important, And Why Only Points For Those Who Say KEEP ? ADOLF, I Love You | --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is important because this is not a decision reached by count of votes. Rather, the closing admin will decide based on the merit of the arguments made. Therefore, an account with few or no other edits will most probably be unaware of WP policy/ not know enough to make a convincing vote. Also, please keep civil - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Single-issue editors tend to be biased. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While the first part of the article is OK in my mind, it quickly gets very biased, and I really don't see how it could be fixed while maintaining the article. Also, there are many people opposing per WP:LINKFARM - I do so as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a link farm. Furthermore, which sections are biased? emijrp (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – as said, nothing but links; barring that, there is nothing else that can't be found in the regular WikiLeaks article. –MuZemike 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not what Wikipedia is here to do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. And no it is not Wikipedia's goal to collect every tiny bit of trivia known to man. What encyclopedia would have list of external links which mirror an online website? Please despam by deleting this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only substantive content violates WP:NOTMIRROR. I don't see any reason to ignore that policy right now as the list of mirrors is freely available. Any other content can be merged with the main article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect but gut the content. Once the lists of external links to non-notable providers are stripped out per WP:LINKFARM and WP:IINFO, anything left can easily be merged into the main article. Most of the actual content is already covered at WikiLeaks#Hosting anyway. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.