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 delete. Majorly (hot!) 13:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak scandal legal questions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page has POV problems. As other pages covering this topic exist, this page is a POV fork. Furthermore, this page has some huge original research problems. Pablothegreat85 03:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Although an indepth discussion of the legalities involved is more than welcome this article does not look like such an analysis. Also it has the smell of a POV-fork and there is the problem with WP:RS and WP:OR.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There have been lots of scandals and leaks at the CIA over time, the title of this article is misleading as it implies this particular case is the only one. It exists to push a particular political point of view and is therefore against Wikipedia guidelines. This isn't a serious analysis of the case, it's original 'research' of dubious quality aimed to knock Karl Rove as much as possible. If it's left it'll just become the subject of yet another edit war. Nick mallory 10:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, already better covered elswhere, so really nothing here to merge. Title is also cumbersome and potentially misleading. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:44, 16 April 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.