339:
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
Knowledge (XXG), 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 Knowledge (XXG)'s community as adhering to common sense principles. --
208:, 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
243:, 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.
519:- 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.
433:
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
234:
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
338:
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
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines regarding article length. Furthermore, this also does not
203:
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
156:
90:
85:
94:
77:
150:
476:
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. __
288:
81:
356:
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. --
117:
73:
65:
314:
171:
262:
138:
536:
511:
485:
466:
443:
425:
406:
389:
367:
348:
329:
303:
277:
252:
225:
59:
200:
132:
375:
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. --
128:
178:
456:
213:
192:
216:(500k hits vs 25k hits). That should raise a huge warning sign that continued diffusing this information comes at a considerable cost.
17:
144:
414:. Significantly noteworthy and extremely worth of its own, separate, independent, and very well sourced and referenced page. --
551:
36:
504:
434:
the same basis US politicians want
Assange prosecuted. (This is an observation and clearly not a legal threat).
550:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
363:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
402:
494:
Plenty of material. In fact, this may merit more region-specific forks as more cables are released...
357:
248:
164:
49:
387:
344:
451:
But also give the main article a significantly condensed version of this. If not possible, then
398:
188:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
439:
195:
and was originally created a week ago but for a lack of agreement on this action it was
481:
421:
325:
299:
273:
244:
221:
376:
340:
236:
111:
435:
240:
498:
526:
477:
460:
416:
321:
295:
269:
217:
209:
544:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
289:
list of
Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions
206:
Sorry folks, but this needs to be brought under control)
196:
107:
103:
99:
163:
199:. Discussion about having this fork was discussed at
74:
Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak
66:
Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak
177:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
554:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
397:Haven't heard any better proposal so far. --
309:
283:
257:
263:list of News-related deletion discussions
201:Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak
313:: This debate has been included in the
287:: This debate has been included in the
261:: This debate has been included in the
457:United States diplomatic cables leak
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
214:United States diplomatic cables leak
193:United States diplomatic cables leak
24:
1:
537:22:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
512:22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
486:20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
467:20:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
444:20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
426:20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
407:19:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
390:17:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
368:16:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
349:14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
330:14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
304:14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
278:14:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
253:14:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
226:14:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
197:soon converted to a redirect
60:22:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
571:
399:Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson
547:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
48:(non-admin closure).
235:editors, including
360:
187:This article is a
52:
44:The result was
508:
358:
332:
318:
306:
292:
280:
266:
212:page as go on to
50:
562:
549:
535:
533:
510:
501:
463:
385:
379:
319:
293:
267:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
570:
569:
565:
564:
563:
561:
560:
559:
558:
552:deletion review
545:
527:
520:
507:
495:
461:
383:
382:
377:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
568:
566:
557:
556:
540:
539:
514:
502:
470:
469:
446:
428:
409:
392:
380:
370:
359:Pontificalibus
351:
333:
307:
281:
255:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
51:Pontificalibus
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
567:
555:
553:
548:
542:
541:
538:
534:
532:
531:
525:
524:
518:
515:
513:
509:
506:
500:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
468:
464:
458:
454:
450:
447:
445:
441:
437:
432:
429:
427:
423:
419:
418:
413:
410:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
374:
371:
369:
365:
361:
355:
352:
350:
346:
342:
337:
334:
331:
327:
323:
316:
312:
308:
305:
301:
297:
290:
286:
282:
279:
275:
271:
264:
260:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
230:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
546:
543:
529:
528:
522:
521:
516:
496:
491:
473:
471:
452:
448:
430:
415:
411:
394:
372:
353:
335:
310:
284:
258:
237:User:Nergaal
231:
205:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
45:
43:
31:
28:
474:speedy keep
241:User:Lihaas
151:free images
46:Speedy Keep
472:I move to
505:vandalism
245:Viriditas
210:WikiLeaks
341:Glitch82
118:View log
530:C M B J
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
436:Edison
129:Google
95:delete
503:: -->
499:RUL3R
497:: -->
492:Keep.
455:with
453:merge
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
517:Keep
482:talk
478:meco
462:Amog
449:Keep
440:talk
431:Keep
422:talk
417:Cirt
412:Keep
403:talk
395:Keep
378:Cycl
373:Keep
364:talk
354:Keep
345:talk
336:Keep
326:talk
322:meco
311:Note
300:talk
296:meco
285:Note
274:talk
270:meco
259:Note
249:talk
232:Keep
222:talk
218:meco
189:fork
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
465:|
384:pia
191:of
179:TWL
116:– (
523:—
484:)
459:-
442:)
424:)
405:)
366:)
347:)
328:)
317:.
302:)
291:.
276:)
265:.
251:)
239:,
224:)
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
480:(
438:(
420:(
401:(
381:o
362:(
343:(
324:(
320:—
298:(
294:—
272:(
268:—
247:(
220:(
204:"
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.