Talk:John Doe (whistleblower)

Talk
This seems quite insignificant, as John Doe is a standard nickname Bronze2018 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about the nickmane, but about a person who is probably one of the most important whistleblower in the history... "John Doe" is his nickmane, as Banksy is a nickname for an other unidentified person (a graffiti artist). The only way to name this person is "John Doe", till now. --Markov (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And why doesn't this belong on the Panama Papers page? Bronze2018 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because some articles in newspapers already talk about identity (hacker or Mossack Fonseca's member), and he/she's already famous as a whistleblower. --Markov (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing here and never likely to be anything which wouldn't actually be more appropriate in the Panama Papers page? I think this page should be marked for speedy deletion Criteria for speedy deletionMattojgb (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
This article contains no content beyond a rephrasing of the title and this qualifies for speedy deletion under A3 of the speedy deletion criteria. The guidelines regarding notability of people responsible for a single event also seem appropriate BLP1E and BIO1E. In particular, in view of the anonymity of this person it seems anything which could be added to this page would more appropriately be on the Panama Papers page.Mattojgb (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not what speedy deletion is intended for. The article clearly is about a person involved in a major, notable event and therefore is a very valid stub given what we know so far. Speedy is when it'd be uncontroversial. Remember, A3 states "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion." This has context and shows exactly what the person is. Appable (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is about a person every newspapers in the world are talking about. Even we don't know yet a lot about him/her, he/she is the object of judicial pursuits. By the way, he/she became one of the most important whistleblowers in the modern history. The page has a very small content, but we can guess, because of the importance of this person, that the article will grow up. For that reason, I think it's a bad idea to delete it, at least too precipitated. --Markov (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC) We can add that he/she had conversations for almost one year with the german newspaper, it's not just "one single action". --Markov (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule indicates : "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"--Markov (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... We're all here to get knowledge, which I am hungry for. Hope you understand. Thanks --41.190.3.233 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Whistleblower
Simple words 112.196.36.139 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

John doe
Simple 112.196.36.139 (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)