Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton donors in the Panama Papers


 * 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. I think there's enough opposition here now for a snow close. This is an obvious COATRACK that violates BLP and NOR. We are not going to leave this around for six months to 'see if anything of actual substance has developed'. Katietalk 23:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Clinton donors in the Panama Papers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A COATRACK article that attempts to tie Hilary Clinton into the Panama Papers by listing the misdeeds of donors to her campaign who may have been Mossack Fonseca clients. As far as I know the Clintons are not mentioned in the papers. The material should be moved to the relevant donor biography if it meets the normal criteria for inclusion there and consideration be given to a short section in the Clinton biography on her comments about the Panama Papers and the possibility that some of her donors may have been MF clients if that is supported by sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * no, they didn't need to, since according to the many RS cited in the text they seemed to have used the Clinton Foundation for these things. Not mentioned so far (article moved about ten minutes ago after another editor removed it from the PP section, where there arguably was a weight issue due to the detail the BLP issues require) is the fact that the CF uses holding companies in Delaware -- irrelevant to the Panama Papers article. The PP article extensively documents associates of Vladimir Putin with ties to the Panama Papers and there is agreement on the talk page that this is a balance issue. And clearly these allegations are notable, and come from multiple reputable and authoritative sources in both cases. Hillary Clinton may not be personally mentioned in the Panama Papers but neither is Vladimir Putin, David Cameron, the Pakistani prime minister, or any number of politicians mentioned in the main article, and one wonders why THAT is ok but Hillary Clinton would somehow be immune. Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Everymorning these are more than minor biographical details. There seems to be a pattern of unusual policy decisions in close proximity to donations to the Clinton Foundation or paid speeches, and people are going to jail in Africa for less. Surely on Wikipedia we can at least mention it. Authoritative RS exists, here for example. Admittedly that's an editorial but it's a nice expert summmary for those haven't read the material yet. Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Admittedly that's an editorial" is pretty much a straight up admission that no, "authoritative RS" do NOT exist. Just a bunch of opinion pieces, some of which attack a particular politician. And we don't use editorials for BLP except in exceptional circumstances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The rest of your comment ("there seems to be a pattern...") is just your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clinton is associated with someone who's associated with someone who's in the Panama Papers. As a well-connected politician, this is not exactly surprising. (See Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.) What's in the main Panama Papers article should be sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am fine with leaving this around for a while and then say in 6 months see if anything of actual substance has developed enough for a full article. I think keeping this article alive will allow the main article to remain encyclopedic. Nergaal (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons Elinruby and Nergaal have given. This article is important as it is unique from the Panama Papers article, and hence the content cannot be moved there. Including this content on the main PP article would be undue weight (and in many parts not particularly relevant), yet there seems to be consensus on Talk:Panama Papers to mention the Clinton Foundation's relation to the PP for the reasons given by Elinruby above; the fact that individuals have not been mentioned personally hasn't stopped Vladimir Putin and David Cameron being mentioned in the article (although I personally think Cameron's section should be moved, but that's for another discussion...) Therefore, the creation of this article seems necessary, and it should be kept. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 15:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Clintons aren't connected to the Panama Papers as far as we know. The whole thing is completely speculative and a serious BLP violation to boot, implying some form of corruption for which there is no evidence. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * my friend, do you see the references on this and on the Panama Papers article? There are *buckets* of evidence, some of it already in the article and more that is not, and you are trying to delete the reliably sourced material that is. This article spun off the Panama Papers due to length; it can't go back there. I am probably going to have another on Vladimir Putin, since *his* section is long and omits big chunks of data. I think you just WP:DONTLIKE it; speculative it is not.Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete My sense after reading the article is that there is a lot of original synthesis (WP:SYN) involved in fleshing out the article. Only a couple of references explicitly make a connection between Clinton and the people in the Panama Papers (esp. footnote 5, which appears to serve as the entire basis of the article). If some of the material is retained, the material on the main Panama Papers page is sufficient. (Noteworthy, in the version of the article I viewed, there is no link to the Panama Papers articles itself.) So, although there are RS for the details of each individual in the article, this subject is not. Enos733 (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No comparable article of this type exists for any other political figure who is only tangentially connected to the Panama Papers, which suggests that this is very clearly a misplaced original research attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton by synthesizing sources to tar and feather her with guilt by association. You're free to think whatever you want, on your own time and dime, about what the business practices of some of Clinton's donors says about her credibility as a presidential candidate — but per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, it's not Wikipedias job to be your platform. Delete'. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Bearcat and nom. This is a very clear WP:COATRACK and possible WP:POVFORK, and I think that any material on the whole matter should be dealt with in context of each donor's own article and perhaps Clinton's, but a whole article on this alone gives me pause for thought. It's not really a BLP violation per se, but there's a strong implication of guilt by association, as Bearcat correctly noted. GABHello! 22:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK. Also seems to be somewhat WP:OR AusLondonder (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. Graham (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per AusLondonder: this is a classic WP:COATRACK article, and may also be a WP:BLP violation as well. 11:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom et al. (especially ) as a COATRACK and POVFORK, wrapped into a game of Six degrees of Friends of Hillary. Also, this is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because Prince (singer) wore a purple suit, it does not mean that purple suit is a notable thing. Nor would the fact that Barack Obama once lived around the corner from me, or that 93rd Street (Manhattan) has an article, make 94th Street (Manhattan) notable. At best, by trying to link this, that, and yonder source into a single article, it is little more than WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This is now SNOW, can we zap it please due to the BLP issues? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons has given.  [And the detail around the people mentioned in the Panama Papers article should stay there, in that article.]   Boscaswell   talk  20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As an involved editor obviously I think we should keep this. I'd like to mention a couple of other points though.


 * 1) the UK section of the Panama Papers will eventually spin off a David Cameron article very similar to this.
 * 2) The entire Panama Papers article is full of people who are mentioned because their father founded Namibia, or is the prime minister of Pakistan or whatever, so why are the editors defending the honor of Hillary Clinton here not bothered about *them*, hmmm?
 * 3) Also, it is a given in investigations of campaign finance that large donors often circumvent donation limits by making donations in the name of employees and family members. There is a good explanation of this at Open Secrets. This is not to say that the prime minister of Pakistan is necessarily involved, for example, but on the other hand the daughters of the president of Azerbaijan almost certainly became billionaires due to daddy.
 * 4) The people who think this is SYNTH or original research haven't looked at the talk page of the Panama Papers. This was originally text plagiarized from the McClatchy article, with some strange additions. I fact-checked it, added additional references -- because I share the BLP concerns -- and rewrote for original wording. It's out there in reliable sources, people. Elinruby (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * please also note that the people saying keep have worked on the Panama Papers article, which deals with a large amount of very complex material. The other editors have not contributed on the topic and may not be very familiar with it.Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To reply briefly to your points:
 * David Cameron is connected (loosely) to the Panama Papers because he was a shareholder of a firm that used MF services.
 * Those other people are mentioned in the PP. The Clintons are not.
 * This is completely irrelevant. We can't imply corruption by Clinton just because other people are corrupt.
 * No reliable source links the Clintons to the PPs and they are not mentioned in the papers themselves. Please quote the source if you have one. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep No reliable source links Putin to the PPs. It is "only" a cellist, Sergei Roldugin. For the Clintons there are "only" Frank Giustra (Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP) pioneering an innovative approach to poverty alleviation), Sergei Kurzin, the Chagoury-Clan, Marc and Denise Rich - Glencore International (!), Ng Lap Seng, ect. ect. ect. --91.10.60.58 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF exists argument which is EXPLICITLY discounted for deletion discussions. Second, do we actually have "Putin donors in the Panama Papers" template or article? No, then what's your point anon IP? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a coatrack article, probably made by people in the opposing party. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as relevant to contemporary US politics, but shorten significantly and moderate the narrative. Neutralize the sensationalist subtitles ("The IPO specialist", "The fugitive billionaire", "The convicted kleptocrat", "The illegal contributor", "The friend in the diamond business") as well. Also, the last section, except for the last sentence, seems irrelevant to the topic. Asav | Talk 14:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elinruby and Asav. Tobby72 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - ridiculous POV fork and a big WP:BLP violation. Voting "Keep" in the hope that this can be made neutral in some way is pipe dreamin'. There's also no sources which actually cover this as a topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * News coverage:
 * Panama Papers: Hillary Clinton Donor Benefits From Tax Loopholes While She Calls For Accountability, International Business Times, April 6, 2016
 * The Clintons’ connection to the Panama Papers, New York Post, April 17, 2016
 * Hillary, the Panama Papers, and the death of American kleptocracy, The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 18, 2016
 * Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection, The Observer, April 7, 2016
 * Inside Panama Papers: Multiple Clinton connections, McClatchy Newspapers, April 16, 2016
 * With Saudi and Russian ties, Clinton machine's tentacles are far reaching, according to Panama Papers, Salon, April 17, 2016
 * Hillary Clinton Campaign's Ultra-Rich Donors Implicated In Panama Papers, Inquisitr, April 24, 2016
 * The Clintons’ Connection To The Panama Papers, Fox News, April 17, 2016
 * -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A bunch of sensationalist editorials and blog posts (no, this is not "news coverage" as you claim Toby).... seriously? I mean the "clinton's tentacles" should be a dead giveaway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of citations in the list above which are of very reputable organisations - they should definitely not be dismissed merely because they present an opinion. That should definitely not rule them out as being reliable sources.  Please bear in mind that MSM sources present an opinion, which is the establishment view - but they disguise it as news.   Boscaswell   talk  20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources describe "The Clintons’ connection to the Panama Papers". We report what reliable sources say. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTNEWS, what we do is more than simply regurgitate tripe like this from "reliable sources". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, so what? With a little effort, you could compile a comparable list of such donors for each presidential candidate still in the running; and you could just as easily compile a list of donors whose names somehow came up in some connection with Deflategate, or with companies responsible for the introduction of large quantities of dihydrogen monoxide into the food supply. bd2412  T 22:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork, guilt by association, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't "guilt by association", it's what reliable sources say. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The implication (per COATRACK, POVFORK, etc.) is Hillary Clinton's guilt by association. Why else group the people who have ties as Clinton donors? The entire lead is Hillary speaking out against this kind of behavior, so the article is via SYNTH trying to suggest that she's dishonest and crooked. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. How can a coat rack and BLP nightmare like this survive that long? It's election season.--TMCk (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of the worst guilt-by-association attacks I've seen. When the Panama Papers first came out, everyone was surprised by how few Americans appeared in them.  So what was done here?  Find anyone anywhere in the world who ever had any kind of tangential connection to any Clinton or any Clinton venture and who appears in the Papers, and create a section for them with a foreboding section title.  And some of this stuff is thin gruel indeed:  Take the six-paragraph-long "The administrator" section, which says that a friend of Hillary's campaign manager from 16 years ago has an offshore account with some of the friend's family members, the account has no money in it, and the friend has donated all of $250-to-1,000 to the Clinton Foundation.  OMG!  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs a WP:SNOW close soon or it should be simply blanked as an attack page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe this AFD is falling under the radar and needs some attention from AN.--TMCk (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'm of two minds - whether I should just start removing everything from the article because it's such a blatant over the top BLP vio, or leave all the junk in so that people can see that it's a... blatant over the top BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Left a notice at AN here.--TMCk (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I was tempted to snow-close this as 'delete', but I concluded there are enough reasonable 'keep' !votes to preclude a snowstorm. So instead I will just say that I hope this gets deleted as soon as the seven days are up. I can't improve on what Bearcat said: "No comparable article of this type exists for any other political figure who is only tangentially connected to the Panama Papers, which suggests that this is very clearly a misplaced original research attempt to discredit Hillary Clinton by synthesizing sources to tar and feather her with guilt by association." I would add that there is virtually no INDEPENDENT reliable sourcing to support the thesis of some kind of notable association between Clinton and the Panama Papers. Most of the sources do not even draw that conclusion - they are about the individuals - and the few that do make a connection are clearly POV editorializing, not neutral news reporting. Note, too, that the article doesn't even attempt to disguise its POV; the section headings are a dead giveaway. And instead of a normal lead summarizing the article, the first paragraph is a collection of quotes from her - which I guess the rest of the article is then supposed to disprove or something? I agree with Volunteer Marek that the article cannot be improved; it is a BLP violation on its face, and only deletion will fix it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MelanieN Surely the egregious nature of the BLP violation overrides the need to wait seven days Melanie? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I could agree with that if there was more of a consensus. But based on the two-sided discussion here (and I commend both sides for maintaining calmness and courtesy in what could be a very contentious discussion), I don't think I, or any admin, can close it early on our own. The discussion at AN might give a slightly speedier decision, but we are only talking about two additional days. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This subject is far too tenuous to merit encyclopedic coverage. The article fails to describe what the "Panama Papers" are, or what significance arises from being in the Panama Papers. In fact, the Panama Papers refers to a data breach wherein documents from a particular Panamanian law firm were accessed by hackers. There is, it must be noted, nothing illegal about doing business with a Panamanian law firm. The implication is that people are engaged in wrongdoing because their data was breached. Most people at some point in their lives have dealings with a lawyer or law firm for some reason; the encyclopedic significance of people having been among hundreds of thousands to have done business with a particular law firm, or having been mentioned by such people in some sense, is close to nil. The effort to connect some people in this group with an unrelated characteristic is much less so. bd2412  T 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Holy COATRACK, POVFORK with a dash of BLP violation batman! Can't really say anything additional that has not already been said above. So per nom. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: this reads like something from Conservapedia. It's a blatant attempt to smear Clinton by associating her with alledgedly immoral people, with, of course, material chosen so as to present a view which is as one-sided as possible while maintaining a veneer of NPOV. Synthesis, coatrack, what-have-you, it's here. BethNaught (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete, salt, and trouts to our admins and to oversight who should have been onto this in minutes, not days. This is patently a partisan attack page.  COATRACK, POVFORK.  MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious POVFORK. Let's not waste any mote time on this. --McSly (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete this POVFORK, COATRACK BLP violation per nom.  Mini  apolis  22:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is anything important and factual here, this should be placed in page about Clinton Foundation. A POV fork indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.