Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jeffrey Epstein


 * 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 keep. Clear consensus for the notability of the subject. I acknowledge the note for closer regarding the Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories AfD having been closed as merge to this article and am affirming that result here. El_C 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Death of Jeffrey Epstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is getting ridiculous. We already have two articles covering Epstein's death - Jeffrey Epstein, and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, and now a third article containing almost exactly the same material as the second, minus the conspiracy theories. This is a content fork of a content fork, none of it bearing up to long-term notability. bd2412 T 01:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect while I believe this subject absolutely will bear up to long-term notability, we don't need two articles. Redirect this to Jeffrey Epstein Railfan23 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This is, in fact, ridiculous. His death is already sufficiently being covered in his own article. I mean goddamn, it’s been 2 (TWO) days. This is the kind of rush to be first nonsense that was happening when Michael Jackson died. Trillfendi (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And I said what I said, don’t redact me . Trillfendi (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect Unnecessary fork. Spengouli (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to the above that if this article is deleted, and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories is kept, then the latter article should be moved to this title, and ideally stripped of its more fringe elements. bd2412  T 02:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. There's no point in a redirect; people will go straight to the Epstein article without searching for this. And there is discussion at the "conspiracy theories" article about moving it to this title and making it more neutral and general. Let's leave the title open against that possibility. BTW the only reason I didn't nominate this for deletion is that BD2412 did it first. We had exactly the same reaction - "this is getting ridiculous." -- MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Now that the article has been expanded into a proper article, IMO it is ready to accept a merge from the "conspiracy" article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't redirect. His biography article covers this!! Govvy (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect I agree the article shouldn't exist, but I see no harm in creating a redirect. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  13:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Delete On second thought, deleting this page clears up the name so we could move Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories here. -- Puzzledvegetable  Is it teatime already?  13:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for now until the conspiracy theory article AfD has concluded. Then we can decide what to do with the two articles. Perhaps they should be merged together, but it is inappropriate to have this AfD and the other one at the same time. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The inappropriate thing was that this article was created while the AfD on the other one was underway, and discussion was ongoing there to move that article to this title. bd2412  T 23:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That AfD was at Snow Keep levels. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable death with much discussion in the media, including conspiracy theories, which can all be supported here for now. StonyBrook (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part that there are already currently two articles on this subject? Trillfendi (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I did not. I believe the conspiracy article should be merged here. His death is becoming quite a topic on its own and needs it's own article. StonyBrook (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jeffrey Epstein. Much of what is in this article is found in the main article about the subject. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to Jeffrey Epstein and merge to rest of content to Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 20:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge At this rate there's a likely possibility that this article will be deleted and Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories will be kept. This one could be expanded or they could be merged together and the article would resemble something like Murder of Seth Rich, which focuses more on the conspiracy theories than the actual death. There's enough coverage for at least one article though.LM2000 (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Death of Jeffrey Epstein delete Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories which is also in the process of an AfD. - Scarpy (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jeffrey Epstein. It could be split out in the future to its own article if the Epstein article becomes too long. Also favor merging the conspiracy article. Edison (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG due to the overwhelming level of reliable secondary sources covering the subject. I think it's best that we discuss what to do with the article relating specifically to the conspiracy theories after said discussion is closed as keep / no consensus to delete, which currently seems to be the most likely outcome for the conspiracy theories article. There does seem to be a decent amount of interest in merging those two articles & using this name, but that's best to be decided in a discussion of its own. For both policy reasons and procedural reasons, I don't believe that deletion is a beneficial course of action here.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 23:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This subject is notable and large enough, thanks to the circumstances of his death and the conspiracy theories, to justify its own article. Later merge Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories into this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should have this article separate from the one already covering the same elements at Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories? bd2412  T 00:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think this question should be relevant in either of the deletion discussions which you've nominated. I further explain why in a comment I've left on your proposal to delete the page regarding the conspiracy theories. In short, the question you've asked to BullRangifer is one that is best answered by one merge discussion, not by two simultaneous deletion discussions.     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 00:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't be having two simultaneous deletion discussions if the second article was not created in the middle of the first. bd2412  T 01:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While that is true, that isn't exactly relevant when considering that the most likely outcome is that one of the articles is eventually going to be merged into the other, which is not possible when one or both articles and all their histories have been deleted; at this time, the only thing preventing a merge discussion from occurring is the fact that multiple deletion discussions are still ongoing, neither of which seem likely to pass (especially the one at the conspiracy theory page).     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither deletion discussion is proper as both subjects are independently notable. Both AfDs are a huge disruptive waste of time. The articles will most likely be merged. A merge discussion would have been proper, but we're being delayed by this mess. Frivolous AfDs that fail should result in a two week block, they are that disruptive. They show a fundamental lack of understanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The very idea that there “needs” to be 3 articles on the death of someone who died *counts finger* 3 days ago, when so much as an autopsy hasn’t been conducted, is proof positive of the bias on this website. Y’all are acting like this is the first person who ever killed himself when the chickens came home to roost. Things without all remedy should be without regard. Trillfendi (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but it sounds as if your comment is directed at a strawman. Have any editors suggested that there "needs" to be three articles on his death, or that this is the first time anyone committed suicide when punished?     Vanilla           Wizard      💙 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that the same editor created the "Conspiracy" article and the "Death" article, when these were already mentioned in the main article, indicates that at least one editor really does think we need three separate articles on this one event. bd2412  T 01:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your last comment. If in your mind Epstein is comparable to Hitler, then for sure an extra article should be warranted; if not, then why invoke this comparison, which seems to contradict your position of the death of Epstein being unnotable? StonyBrook (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But they can’t take a joke.... If you really thought I was comparing this reprobate to Hitler then I can’t help you. Other than that, someone who died ~96 hours ago doesn’t need 3 articles about it when his own does it justice. Then again, someone did write an article about Hitler’s dog so, I can already see where this is going. *sigh* Trillfendi (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, i was going to suggest "delete" as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:UNECESSARY (what! not even an essay on this?!!:)), but as it would probably just be recreated in a few months time probably best to keep this, note: i have suggested a selective "merge" to this article of Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories, (see Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories). ps. this is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable and there is a precedent for it HAL  333  02:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not notable enough to require two articles covering exactly the same content, but with different wording. bd2412  T 02:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then merge, not AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? I don't see any conspiracy theories here. HAL  333  15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The significant points of this article are, however, duplicated in the other article; while this one does say "U.S. President Donald Trump responded to Epstein's death by retweeting a conspiracy theory linking his death to Bill and Hillary Clinton". You must know that duplicate content is going to continue to leak into both articles. I doubt anyone will police that. bd2412  T 04:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with the death conspiracy theories article. On the other hand if Barr, Stasse and others keep the pressure on, we may soon need a Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case article with how much posthumous investigating will have happened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment deletion is not cleanup applies here. We probably do not need all the quotes we currently have from various people, but that is not relevant to weather we should have the article or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I just realized that today begins the one year free of statue of limitations window to sue over child sexual abuse allegations in New York. In most cases people will sue an institution and need to prove some sort of lack of oversight, prior knowledge of a threat, etc. However Epstein is one of the few perpetrators of such abuse who is worth sueing on their own. I have to wonder if this fact motivated Epstain's actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Has significant coverage, and it would be too long to merge into the main article.Swil999 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Some mysterious rich sex trader dies after buying hookers for famous rich pedos, press goes wild, indy rocker solves the mystery. Easily contained at his own personal island of misfit information. Three paragraphs, tops. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, and merge Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories into this article. Benjamin (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG. – Anne drew  14:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories. I think it would be good to keep the actual events and conspiracy theories separately. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, ample coverage and sourcing available on this specific aspect of Epstein's life. Fish +Karate  18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think there is enough discussion and notability of the subject to warrant an article to it's own. However I think Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories should be merged here, we don't need three different articles covering the same topic.  - Euphoria 42  (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge - with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories and if Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories is deleted, merge with Jeffrey Epstein.  Meatsgains (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories as both are forks of tightly connected topics. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm fine with conspiracy theories being deleted or merged, but I feel certain much more will come of this case, and so much already has in less than a week, that a separate article is advisable to keep just for information that would fit better here than Epstein's main article. Sirkh1 01:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic seems to be receiving significant coverage beyond what would be appropriate for inclusion in the main Jeffrey Epstein article. Also, merge Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories into this article. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: sustained, significant coverage has occurred and is likely to continue. Moreover, if the page on conspiracies regarding Epstein's death is merged or otherwise deleted, the content there may need more than a passing notice in the main Jeffrey Epstein article. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The death has been substantially covered and is clearly significant enough for its own article. Davey2116 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment with the Washington Post and other running articles suggesting Epstein's autopsy may point closer to strangulation than suicide this whole issue just blew up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By a whole sentence or two! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This absolutely is a notable topic, of which has been covered by many reputable news organisations. Derick1259 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles of this type are common and appropriate for people who were famous for other things while alive and also died under unusual circumstances. The level of news coverage of this person's death (as a topic distinct from his life) is more than sufficient. ―cobaltcigs 15:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge with Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories for same reasons as stated by Benjamin,, , and others. An investigation has been launched into his death, which increases the notability. --WuTang94 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - there has been ongoing media coverage for days and this is unlikely to go away. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and merge the "conspiracies" article to this one. Circumstances, investigations, commentaries and serious questions surrounding Epstein's death are far too numerous to include in his bio. The "conspiracies" article inadvertently calls all of this false. ("Conspiracy theory" is a term weaponized by the CIA to stop people from questioning the official story or government narrative by making them appear crazy.) Clearly with the autopsy inconclusive, and the latest news that his injuries are more consistent with strangulation, it is presumptuous to insinuate that all theories about a possible conspiracy (a plan between two or more people) are bogus. Therefore, I have iVoted to delete the conspiracy article and merge content to this one.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   17:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The autopsy is not so much "inconclusive" but "not completed". There has not been an official word on its outcome. It is in progress. This is not that uncommon under the circumstances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep A famous person suffered a violent death in judcial custody and it has received widespread ongoing coverage. It easily meets notability. TFD (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the conspiracy theories article into this one. Ongoing notability and details are now emerging of this death being suspicious.  Nixinova  T</b> </b><b style=background:#00a1ff;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 08:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the conspiracy theories article into one article, may the two become one! Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the conspiracy theories article --Nowa (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The autopsy now officially says he committed suicide. I am not sure if this will change anyone's view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Millions of people who believe a coroner is the right person for a coroner's job probably went from "undetermined" to "suicide by hanging" after this. But yeah, the sort that trust their gut or the sort that publish opinion pieces are likely standing by their old selves. If there's one thing worse than trading in a vast estate for a prison cell and having the world peer into your porn locker, it's publicly swallowing your pride and eating your words while they're still fresh. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it does appear that Epstein's lawyers are among those who are not convinced. I have to admit that I am not sure who exactly they are now working for with Epstein dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * His vast estate. You can keep living presidents in your pocket, but you can't take dead presidents with you. Pretty sure the FBI gets dibs on his filthy porn stash, but the rest has to go somewhere; wherever that is, lawyers will circle. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge the conspiracy article into this one, and trim the recentist speculation. — JFG talk 21:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closing editor - I have just closed the AFD of Jeffrey Epstein death conspiracy theories as consensus to merge to this article, per discussion at that AFD and here. Steven   Crossin  Help resolve disputes!  02:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.