Deletion of Project Chanology

Comment: As mentioned above, this article definitely meets  in several ways, and is a current event relating to a major website. Hence, strong keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This looks like 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: As stated in , recentism alone doesn't justify deletion. As for the conflict of interest: it's a common problem for WP, but we shouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: Recentism alone isn't a reason for deletion. Any other concerns raised by the nom (, for instance) can be handled without a deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Anonymous" usually overstates how important they feel their 'attacks' are, but considering the media coverage, I would vote to keep the article, at least for now,  and all that.  Save the worrying about where it belongs for after the dust settles.  --Special:Contributions/71.68.2.95|71.68.2.95
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: no questions about it. I know I'm supposed to |assume good faith, but I can't help but wonder about the neutrality of pushing for a deletion of the article at this juncture.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: per , but also because  is not policy, it's an essay. The nom concedes , and it's obvious from the article it passes , I see no precident for deletion.  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:RECENT||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Certainly notable as a media phenomena. Has a lot of press coverage. Over week old so not so horribly recent. Certainly keep worthy even after this meme passes as a historic event. Please note that the  referenced in the header is an essay, not a policy or a guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: One of Wikipedia's ''strengths'' is its ability to collate and summarize reporting on current events. This is not a weakness. The suggestions of , if implemented, would greatly harm this project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: The subject is clearly notable, with large numbers of good references. Even if the whole affair sputters to a halt tomorrow, it will be be notable enough for an article. Will Wikipedia be promoting ''cyberterrorism''? No, a NPOV article from  cites isn't promotion. I do think that it will need to be combed for |Original Research and non-Reliable Sources, but there are tags for that, and AfD isn't one of them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR)