Deletion of OpenLeaks

Comment: And change any and all policies that might have been used to justify deletion; if they are relevant at all to this case, it should be considered a failure case requiring a bug fix to the policies. The part of  on product announcements is justifiable essentially only as protection against disguised spam, which this is not. Even if OpenLeaks never becomes active, the announcement will always remain relevant as an enduring part of the wider history of WikiLeaks. It will be searched for under its own name, not under the name of the founder; general information about him is unlikely to be of interest or use to those searching for OpenLeaks info. ''More generally'': give up deletionism as a general philosophy. Wikipedia has become much less useful since deletionism and "notability" became entrenched. I can't count the times I've looked for missing articles that ought to have been there, or had to spend time (as now) defending the existence of a useful article when it should have been totally uncontroversial
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Redirect''' Merge to its founder on the basis that the website hasn't shown any continuing cultural or social importance, which is a general principle of wikipedia notability for media and organisations.   says "if a notable person has a website, then the website does not 'inherit' notability from its owner. In such cases, it is often best to describe the website in the article about the notable person
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: while it's very true that |notability is not temporary, even a notable subject can have insufficent information available to make a reasonable article about it. As a failed project, this is best dealt with by merging into the article on its (attempted) founder, with a redirect to the section of the article the contento on OpenLeaks is in
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: per nom and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Notability is not revoked, there is a serious misreading of what  says: something can not exist but have achieved notability. Even vaporware has articles if they meet GNG, which this does. If any merger happens it should be because a proper merge discussion in the article, not deletion discussion. Thius should be closed as no consensus, and let a proper merger discussion happen in the article. As it stands, this smells like forum shopping
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)