Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Megiddo

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 withdrawing nomination by myself. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Megiddo

Article about a report from the FBI that targets religious groups. The FBI produces hundreds of reports like this every year, and this specific one doens't appear to be notable. No coverage by

WP:V. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Checked fbi.gov for source, but "Your search - Project Megiddo - did not match any documents." Clearly
WP:V. --Davidbober 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: The above claim is misleading. Google search 'Project Megiddo' turns of the official FBI doc at a US gov site. (gpo.gov.www.fbi.gov - pdf file) shown at the following Goggle cache - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Invalid nomination : Report was covered by numerous sources such as this Oct 21 1999 AP Story, this commentary in The New American, commentary on gunowners.org, and partisan source [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14869 WorldNutDaily]. The FBI even issued a press release in response to an article about the report that appeared in USA Today a highly unusual occurance speaking to the controversy this report created. Anyone with access to Lexis/Nexis could find dozens more sources. The nomination's claims of the FBI producing hundreds of 'reports like this every year' is unfounded speculation. I'd like to see some documentation of just how many reports 'like this' the FBI 'produces every year' to back up these speculative claims. It is my understanding that this report caused significant backlash against the agency, and that they were more circumspect after their noses got bloodied by maligning a group with considerable clout. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was a widely covered news item during the run-up to Y2K. Dragomiloff 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination since FAAFA has produced coverage from at least one reliable source - the AP story is enough for me. My apologies. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Neo. The article is just a stub anyway, perhaps you would like to help add to it. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:09, 15 January 2007 (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.