Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Teixeira


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The BLP1E has particular force here, but I conclude there is a rough consensus that the article should be kept. While not everyone endorsed the same rationale, there appears to be a meeting of the minds that the subject qualifies as an exception by virtue of not being a low-profile individual, and due to significance of the actions attributed to him in reliable sources' reports of the events. There is a strong undercurrent to merge the article, and this discussion can continue on the appropriate pages, but I do not consider it to have overcome the consensus to keep in this discussion. Finally, I note that the article was indefinitely extended confirmed protected today; I support this action and would have done the same. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Jack Teixeira

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP1E. This is the suspect in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks, from which his notability entirely derives. Most of the article describes him in the context of these leaks, and his biography is otherwise unremarkable. It is possible that during and after his likely trial, enough will be written about him as a person to warrant a separate article, but we are not yet at that stage. For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large.  Sandstein  14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify for now, until the story has some time to be looked at and reported on in the media. This is still ongoing and it's probalby TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military,  and United States of America.  Sandstein  14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: "3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." There is already significant coverage, and his role was clearly substantial.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: WP:BLPCRIME is worth considering.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME includes "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law", so that aspect seems to undermine the suggestion that "his role was clearly substantial" in the event; the content of the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article also does not appear to describe a clearly substantial role. Beccaynr (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME stipulates that a BLP subject cannot be asserted in the article as having committed a crime before being convicted by a court. That does not remotely enjoin us, as editors, from coming to a consensus that a subject had a documented role in an event.  Be he ever so innocent, no one can credibly assert that Teixeira and this event have no connection.   Ravenswing      07:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME does not imply no connection, and BLP1E#3 discusses either a substantial or well-documented role. From my view, we are currently limited by BLPCRIME and other parts of BLP policy, such as the prohibition on sensationalism and BLPGOSSIP, from showing a 'substantial or well-documented' role. After material is pruned from the article to comply with BLP policy, what appears to remain is a pseudobiography with an undue focus on the event, which supports a merge per WP:BLP1E#2. Beccaynr (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep — The continuous coverage of Teixeira, with articles on who he is, just barely passes this article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify He will be notable upon conviction most likely, but currently being formally a suspect may not be enough for an article. I suspect he will be convicted eventually, so I'd say draftify rather than delete. Brandmeistertalk  14:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * MERGE into 2023 Pentagon document leaks.  conman33  (. . .talk)  14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Brandmeister. Mooonswimmer 15:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Esowteric. Thriley (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify per other comments. I'd rather see this parked until the justice system runs its course. Right now there's too much white noise around the whole thing.Intothatdarkness 15:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, we will find out a lot more about the subject, along with his involvement and the extent of this leak and crime. As others have said above, Teixeira's role was significant, and was both substantial and well documented. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per @Esowteric. His role has received significant coverage. I would also like to add the detail regarding his life before then and I suspect that more is to come. - Knightsoftheswords281  (Talk-Contribs) 15:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete a BLP nightmare that falls under both WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. We have no idea what the outcome will be and we have people already saying he will be notable upon conviction. This can be covered in the article on the leaks. You simply cannot say his role was substantial unless he is found guilty. This should be redirected to the article on the leaks now and potentially deleted if the case falls apart.  nableezy  - 15:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And for what makes this a BLP nightmare, consider the sentence currently in the article: Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that Teixeira had violated the Espionage Act. The Attorney General does not determine if somebody violated the law. Their office may charge somebody and they may say that they believe that somebody violated the law. We already have unambiguous BLP violations in this article, and that is what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to prevent.  nableezy  - 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge: Coverage suffers from WP:RECENTISM and this would fit nicely within the leak article itself without also being a walking BLP disaster. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Teixeira’s alleged leaks were notable, and continued over a significant period of time. His alleged actions were also unique, in that he is charged with sharing them casually with friends while playing Minecraft and other games. In short, he was an ANG member with significant access to classified intel who allegedly shared secret intelligence. The damage he is alleged to have done is only now being analyzed. He is notable, as charged. Should he be found not guilty, we can revisit this later. (Edited)Juneau Mike (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This entire comment is a BLP violation.  nableezy  - 16:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. My entire comment represents charges filed in federal court. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And you are claiming they are true. Please read WP:BLPCRIME, particularly the bit A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.  nableezy  - 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This article will stand the test of time. I stand by my original !vote. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And it should be removed as a BLP violation ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.  nableezy  - 16:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that since this comment the above !vote was modified in this diff.  nableezy  - 19:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPBALANCE, The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times, so revisiting this article after the criminal court process concludes does not appear supported. What appears to be fair to the subject at this time is to include relevant and WP:BLP policy-compliant content in the 2023 Pentagon document leaks article, and as noted in the AfD nomination, later consider a split per WP:SS as needed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure. I would say it is a case of WP:BLP1E, he is only notable for the leaks. (i normally don't read the "Wikipedia:____" pages regarding biographies as i don't usually work on them). At the same time, I would probably vouch to merge this page, albeit reduced to a few sections or so, due to the notability of the leaks. However I would also keep it because of the wide media coverage the trial might have, a similar reason to Nicola Bulley's case because of the media coverage regarding her disappearance. Otherwise I'm unsure. e (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, you know what? Since a lot of people (80-90% of voters) are vouching to keep this article I might just as well join in the crowd and vote to Keep this article. Since the leaks began, he has made it into nearly every major media outlet and thus has a lot of media attention due to the severity of the leaks.e (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the keeps are closer to 60% right now, not 80-90%. Don't forget, draftify/merge/redirect affect the discussion. Also your !vote may be downweighted or ignored by the closer if you don't provide an argument stronger than WP:MAJORITY. Arguments should be grounded in Wikipedia policy. Hope this helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Agree fully with potential "BLP nightmare" concerns, and fully support the pushback against editor statements here that presume guilt, such as that of @Juneau Mike. The former, and manifestations in-article of the latter, can be addressed by careful editing (ensuring termes like "accused" and "alleged" are used throughout). But it is simply a matter of fact that, in the modern era, guilty or not, an individual accused of such a high-profile crime, and taken into custody in such a public and dramatic fashion—they become notable, and remain notable, even if eventually absolved. As a point of comparison, see the history of the article on Richard Jewell; as long as this individual has to be in the public spotlight, WP does a potential service, in fully applying its policies and guidelines, in the presentation of the best independent, verifiable, source-derived information on the title subject. Absent that, the web-browsing public, at best, only has access to individual reports (and so will often lack the breadth and scope that an encyclopedic presentation can provide). And at worst, they are subject to the whims of recommendation engines and click-baiting/biasing practices that do not necessarily elevate the most reliable reporting in general search results. No, there is a service to be provided here, and it can be done without violating WP standards. [a former university faculty member] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: my comments have been limited to the talk page. I haven’t edited the article. When I do in the future, my edits will take into account BLP. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP applies everywhere, including the talk page and this AFD.  nableezy  - 17:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. You are allowed opinions in talk, so long as they are not presented as fact. My only error was not making it clear that these were my opinions. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read all of WP:BLP, or at least the first paragraph.  nableezy  - 18:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This person has been in the top story of the front page of the New York Times for several days, so I think this fails #3 of WP:BLP1E. Agreed with the BLP concerns, though those can be handled within the article itself; they do not require deletion. The article already contains enough sourced material (and clear scope) to justify its existence separate from 2023 Pentagon document leaks. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:BLP1E has an exception for those with a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Whereas 2023 Pentagon document leaks will focus on the content of the information and its foreign policy implications, this article highlights the unique political motivations of this suspect amid significant news coverage of right-wing extremism in the military presenting a national security risk.   This article does not violate WP:BLPCRIME in describing anecdotes about the subject attributed to specific classmates and online users. However, the Espionage in the United States category needs to be removed until a potential conviction. I removed it a few hours back but it has returned, so noting the issue here to seek consensus.  BluePenguin18 🐧  ( 💬 ) 16:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC) *Weak keep, for now. WP:BLP1E states that "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Based on others who have leaked information at this scale -- Reality Winner comes to mind -- I find it highly unlikely that he will remain a low-profile individual. Condition #3 most likely is not met as well given the sheer international scope of the fallout. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Brighterorange and Esowteric. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. —scs (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep As NPP for this article so might be seen as involved, but I am baffled we are spending time questioning the notability of an individual accused of causing a major international diplomatic crisis and whose actions have made global headlines, usually accompanied by a detailed biographical profile. He has already been compared to Snowden in the political impact of his actions (even though the way information was leaked here was different). He will remain notable on his own whether he is convicted or not. This, to me, is a completely misguided attempt to assign WP:RECENTISM and is not doing encyclopedia any good. We could be spending this time ensuring the quality of article is high, so that people who will inevitably be searching his name online get the most reliable information. This whole thread is a timesink.  Ppt91    talk   16:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2023 Pentagon document leaks. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME, I don't believe there are currently grounds to establish a standalone article for this person. It may well be the case that he ultimately proves to be independently notable, but as things stand now, keeping his article on those grounds would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the "Strong keep" reply above referencing Richard Jewell. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E requires "each of three conditions [to be] met". Please clarify that you understand that all three need to be met, and that you still find this to be the case. Cf. argument of @User:Brighterorange in their vote to “Keep”. 2601:246:C700:F5:FD87:5034:59D4:3581 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe all three conditions have been met. While Teixeira has been charged in relation to the leaks, in the absence of a conviction it's not Wikipedia's place to state that he was responsible for them. Thus, it's not conclusively established whether Teixeira had any role in the event, let alone a substantial or well-documented one. It's plausible that he will ultimately become notable even if he is ruled to be uninvolved - your example of Richard Jewell demonstrates how even inaccurate allegations can become notable if they're sufficiently prominent - but, again, WP:CRYSTAL advises us not to write articles based on presumed future notability. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Weak Merge into 2023 Pentagon document leaks, the subject has achieved a somewhat significant level of notability through his actions, however this level of notability is (in my opinion), just barely enough to warrant an individual article, however I am split on the manner so I personally believe either keeping the article or merging it with 2023 Pentagon document leaks would suffice. Dellwood546 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge or Draftify into article on leaks. Subject is not notable enough by himself to need a whole article until further developments. Frzzl (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment An article for Faisal Shahzad was created on May 10, 2010. He wasn’t convicted until almost six weeks later. I don’t believe a conviction is necessary to establish notability. One can be a notable defendant. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This individual was arrested by a large military contingent including helicopters, armored vehicles, and manned by heavily armed soldiers with full military gear. It makes sense to conclude from this that the United States military considers this individual to be an extreme threat that must be intercepted in a manner that sends a strong message.  Such a massive show of force by the US military against a specific individual makes this person worthy of public documentation such as a Wikipedia page summarizing important known facts.  There should be a distinction between this individual and the larger issue of the 2023 Pentagon document leaks which is an issue touching on all aspects of production and control of the documents in question. M0llusk (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a controversial article. CastJared (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: In accordance with WP:BLPCRIME. If he is proven guilty, an article can be made, until then he is considered innocent. There is no hurry. Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 19:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per what Brighterorange said. Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think WP:GS/RUSUKR applies and non-EC comments should be struck. I've also requested page protection at WP:RFPP. RAN1 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly passed significant-coverage test. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And what about the last line of WP:NSUSTAINED?  nableezy  - 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Teixeira is clearly not "a low-profile individual." Neutralitytalk 22:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You might have a point if that is what it says. But, unsurprisingly because it would render moot the entire BLP1E policy, that is not what it says. What it says if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Otherwise remains, meaning outside of this event, that we already have an article on, is the person expected to have some profile.  nableezy  - 22:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a single event situation. The subject of the article is accused of disclosing classified documents over a series of months. And there are multiple events here: (1) the alleged conduct; (2) the investigation; (3) the indictment; (4) the arraignment; (5) whatever happens next. Each event generates global press coverage, expert analysis, etc. In any case, "1E" is a guideline ("generally avoid"), not Holy Writ. The subject is at the center of a globally significant maelstrom involving multiple overlapping events (international affairs, national security, a high-profile criminal prosecution, congressional/DoJ/DoD investigations, etc.) Neutralitytalk 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You seriously dont see a problem on an article on Wikipedia about a 21 year old in which nothing but allegations and accusations are included? And since the subject is presumed innocent of disclosing classified documents over a series of months, that rationale simply does not stand scrutiny. The "event" here is the WP:NEVENT subject, that is 2023 Pentagon document leaks.  nableezy  - 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to boil down to "a previously obscure person is per se not notable unless they have been criminally convicted." That is not, and never has been, policy on the English Wikipedia. The article on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, for example, was created shortly after his arrest. The subject's age also has little (if any) bearing on notability here. Whether a subject meets the general notability guideline depends on significant coverage (in reliable sources independent of the subject), not age. In any event, he is an adult. From a notability perceptive, it matters not whether he is 21 or 41 or 81. Neutralitytalk 20:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is you cannot use playing a central role in a criminal act as evidence that they meet the criteria for an article until they are found guilty, because as we already established the person is presumed innocent until found guilty. So your argument that they played a central role in any of the supposed multiple events cannot stand because we cannot assume he played a central role in it. Do you seriously not see a problem with an article on a living person with nothing but allegations and accusations? Do you think that could possibly be a NPOV biography of a living person? As far as your caricature of my argument, no, I am saying that BLP1E and NSUSTAINED provide for guidance beyond the GNG, and that "notability" for a living person is not the sole criteria for an article. In fact, for a person involved in a single event, it is not the controlling criteria for an article. That remains WP:BLP.  nableezy  - 03:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not sure I understand any of the rationales not to keep; they are outdated, at any rate. Moncrief (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete together with Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Consistency is important.--Maxaxa (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This also seems to be a place where WP:BLP1E and WP:NSUSTAINED set different thresholds, though one links to the other. My comment above is based on the three conditions in BLP1E. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak merge, after looking into BLP1E there is some fuzziness about where this three-criteria test came from and how literally it should be taken. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:BLP1E. There may not be much to merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks, because sensational coverage about Teixeira should generally be excluded per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, and I removed anonymously-attributed content per WP:BLPGOSSIP. Per WP:BLP1E#1, all of the coverage is in the context of this single event. Per WP:BLP1E#2, Teixeira does not appear to meet the criteria outlined for a high-profile person in the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, which includes, A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event; a merge is favored at this time to avoid giving undue weight to the event. And per WP:BLP1E#3, the role of this individual is "not well documented" because these are currently allegations. Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. This person doesn't appear to be notable outside of this one event. The article can be split again if notability is established, not before. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the 3 conditions brought up by Esowteric. Abstrakt (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This person is going to have continued notability as with Snowden and Manning. This was the Biggest security leak in ten years, and during a War. Ryoung 122 04:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks per WP:BLP1E (and WP:BLPCRIME & WP:RECENTISM). I found Beccaynr's analysis of the 3 aspects of WP:BLP1E to be convincing. He was not a whistle blower like Snowden, Manning, etc., and I don't see him being turned into one. Most arguments for keeping seem to be based on baseless assumptions about the future, which seem like weak arguments and slippery slopes. If the future bears it out, we can reevaluate then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 05:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I do not believe WP:BLP1E will be an issue if the subject of the article is convicted of a crime per the third requirement, this article is exactly what WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME are supposed to prevent the existence of. He is not a public figure (and I don't think that's in dispute), so the article is plainly covered under these policies - since the subject does not appear to be notable for anything other than untested allegations against him, seems a clear delete to me. Tollens (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (I'd be interested to see at least some suggestion of why WP:BLPCRIME would not apply by the !keep voters - seems to have been almost entirely ignored so far. I am completely willing to change my vote should there be a good point made to that effect.) Tollens (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My general thinking right now is something along the lines of "Suppose that right this very moment, he is proven, without a doubt, to be completely innocent (because that's exactly what 'presume innocence' means). Would he still be notable?". I would think that the answer to that question would be a very unambiguous no. Tollens (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable enough and will be even more notable. Elserbio00 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is notable and will continue so, just as other leakers! Teixant (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The alleged crime is very serious and has made headline news around the world. The "single crime"/"not a public figure" objections don't apply here. That said, BLP violations will need to be regularly pruned from this article. Kylesenior (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Wikipedia should not delete this article in the middle of all the media attention for this person. Having information sourced for reliable sources helps. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No consensus to delete it whatsoever. RodRabelo7 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I may be crystal balling, but if this person is found innocent then lawsuits usually follow. Jack Teixeira is now a worldwide recognized name given the WP:DEPTH of the coverage involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. He is not notable outside of this one event. Some1 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - A useful article that is likely to grow in size as developments continue in his legal case. The article clearly contains material too detailed for the proposed merger to 2023 Pentagon document leaks. Looks to me like consensus has clearly emerged to keep this article, so let's move on and close this proposal. Jusdafax (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Public enemy number 1 in half a dozen countries, at least. There should be one artilce fpr the leak and another one for the prosecution. Which for the time being is the Jack Teixeira artile, I guess. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep We're at the "had a large role within a well-documented historic event" threshold here. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively, but probably just Redirect - Might be at the point of needing a separate article down the road, but at this point, in addition to BLP1E and BLPCRIME, there is absolutely nothing of importance in this article that isn't in (or couldn't easily be added) to the main article. The main article just does a much better job of presenting this information. Per WP:NOPAGE, passing a notability guideline isn't enough. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 00:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge, although agreed with Rhododendrites that there is very little material transferable to the primary topic, which already details his involvement. JoelleJay (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge: The subject itself—the individual—is not the sole cause of the coverage in mass media. The primary subject is the underlying crime he committed. For instance, if you take away the element of crime, the individual could not have been the subject of mass media attention or its own page in this encyclopedia. Merge with 2023 Pentagon document leaks for now. Perhaps in the future, if the individual becomes a wider public figure (e.g., television appearances, book releases, documentaries, etc.), it would be useful for the subject to have an article similar to Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Multi7001 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like arguing that Pele is not so notable, it's Pele's footballing that is. Or that Taylor Swift isn't that notable, it's Taylor Swift's singing that is notable. We tend to write articles about people who do really notable things. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no rational way to compare low-profile civilians and high-profile entertainers with fan bases. Multi7001 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He is accused of being the leader of an online group with thirty members. If the accusations re true, it seems he tried to impress the members by showing off. (Source)
 * Of course, I gave the obvious examples above to emphasize my point. His publicity seeking is much less effective. But it is possible to compare, rationally, actions that have similar characteristics, even if the outcomes are vastly different. Therefore, I am pushing back on the characterisation of him as "low profile".
 * WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't help a lot with my argument, I think it was written for more traditional ways of seeking publicity, but still I quote: Low-profile: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question and HIGH PROFILE...May have produced publications...at least in part are designed (successfully or not) to self-promote and to attract favorable public attention. does mildly seem to support my stance. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Allegedly posting information and images to a Discord chat group, and/or being sensationalized as an alleged "leader" does not seem alleged as intended to "attract favorable public attention", although speculating on speculation seems to lead us nowhere encyclopedic. I think Multi7001's identification of clear examples of high-profile activity (e.g., television appearances, book releases, documentaries, etc.) is helpful to consider. From my view, it does not seem fair to a BLP subject to speculate on how they might be high-profile based on allegations of criminal conduct and further speculation on reliable sources that may exist in the future to support sensational and extraordinary claims about them. Beccaynr (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some news on his alleged role just out in the past 2 hours. https://abcnews.go.com/US/discord-user-group-secret-documents-surfaced-details-members/story?id=98661438
 * I think the high/low profile thing is up for debate. But I don't think I've said anything "extraordinary". I think saying he is a key person in this event (even if he is falsely accused or not found guilty of a crime) is a reasonable conclusion. Consider this: who are the more significant people associated with the 2023 Pentagon document leaks? I don't think there are any.
 * From WP:BLP1E We generally should avoid having an article....If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. BLP1E's guidance to not also have this article is the crux of what we are debating here. All three criterion need to be met. You don't need to agree with me on the low/high profile thing, to refute this, you'd need to think he's low profile and also that he did not have a significant role in this event. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Unverified claims and speculation by the "internet user claiming to be a member of the small online community" have been discussed on the article talk page, and from my view, continue to not appear appropriate to include per applicable policies and therefore not appropriate to consider as support for a standalone article.
 * I also don't agree that WP:BLP1E is necessarily the crux - we have a variety of core content policies to consider when trying to determine what seems best for the encyclopedia at this time. However, WP:BLP1E#3 says If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, so the event can be significant (and have its own article), but our core content policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:CRYSTAL, seem to warn against establishing a 'substantial or well-documented role' based on sensationalism, speculation, and allegations.
 * BLP policy appears to encourage us to consider whether this article gives undue weight to what we can write about the event, i.e. the documents leak, which includes Teixeira's alleged role, along with an individual identified in the criminal complaint as someone who "reposted that image elsewhere on the internet" (see e.g. WaPo, Apr. 14, 2023), and the related criminal justice process for which we currently only have speculation about how it may proceed. Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to reply further in case I bludgeon, but the first sentence of the justification to delete in its entirety is "WP:BLP1E." So that did seem like the crux of the argument to me. Regarding sensationalism, I assure you that my arguments are informed only by reading reliable sources, primarily WaPo, NYT, BBC and to a lesser extent CNN. Going to try to semi-WP:COAL it from here, I fear I'm already dominating the convo. Peace. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination also states, "For the time being, he is best covered in a "suspect" subsection of the article about the leaks, which may then be split off per WP:SS if it becomes too large." And with regard to sensationalism, even respected media are not immune from producing WP:SENSATIONAL coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BLP1E needs all three criteria to me met. I have doubts that any of them are met.
 * 1) On Criterion 1, there are multiple events: alleged leaking, arrest, court appearance. The guidance is about events, not themes of events, not connected events.
 * 2) On Criterion 2, allegedly sharing classified information online to a group of people is not a low-profile act, it is a publicity-seeking act. WP:LOWKEY gives more details. And the examples are all about wide publicity in mainstream media, rather than an small online group. So this is the weakest part of my argument, and is up for debate, but that doesn't really matter if you accept my C1 and C3 assertions.
 * 3) On Criterion 3, his alleged role was significant in the events he is associated with. He is the main and primary participant in the events.
 * To delete on the basis of WP:BLP1E would require all three of my assertions above to be false. I think the guidance in WP:BLP1E can only direct us towards keep. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Like many keep !voters, you are assuming the subject is guilty of a crime when that has not been confirmed. Your reading of BLP1E is also incorrect. #1 says If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All the coverage is in the context of the alleged document leak, which is what the event is; court cases stemming from it do not somehow have a different context. For #2, sharing info with a small group anonymously is obviously not high-profile; even if it was not anonymous, merely talking to people in a Discord server/image board is not high-profile either. And for #3, his role has not been established, that's the entire point of BLPCRIME. Saying "he is the main and primary participant" is a BLPVIO, full stop. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a subtle but important difference between me saying he is involved (which reliable sources state) and saying if he did a crime. The New York Times has stated that he was an administrator of the group where the documents first appeared. That makes him unavoidably a key part of this.
 * I also disagree about this being one event. Media noted him for being suspected of the leak. Then they noted him when he was arrested. Then they noted him again in court. Almost every notable person on the encyclopedia is notable for one theme of linked events. I think all of Neil Armstrong's notability stemmed from one event. I have seen AFD discussions where editors delete biographies citing BLP1E with the explanation that if it had reached court, that would be a second event, so I think my view is logical and a way of analysing that is common at AFD.
 * On point 2, indeed it's up for debate. I said it was the weakest part of my argument and I think you make a good point. I am now undecided on criterion 2.
 * But I this his role has been established. It's just the criminality or lack thereof that is not established. If the justice system drops all charges tomorrow, I will still say he is notable. Notability is not temporary and it does not hinge on criminality. I think it is fair to say he is a participant in events the reliable sources have identified him as participating in, I have made no assertions about criminality and I think that distinction is important. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per CT55555’s excellent analysis. Good or bad this person will go down in history as being charged as the source of one of the most ridiculous and damaging leaks of classified information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, BLP violation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, no BLP violation. Oakshade (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are assuming his guilt, and yes that is a BLP violation, and yes it should be removed, and yes it probably wont be because BLP enforcement is broken when the sensitivities of Wikipedia editors are somehow aggrieved by a living person. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is looking pedantic, but just to placate your specific point, I added "charged as." That really happened. Oakshade (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not pedantic lol, saying somebody did something and saying somebody is accused of doing something is very different, and if one does not realize that then they lack the competence to edit BLPs. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. I’m looking at all of his comments throughout this thread, and I can’t help but wonder if he sleeps! He means well/assuming good faith. But he’s putting an incredible amount of time and energy into this. Juneau Mike (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone is trying to participate via the talk page and clearly struggling with the tech/protection. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(45deg,Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Purple);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">CT55555 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh well. There's no reason for ip editors to be weighing in here, anyways. Whoever preemptively protected this afd, thumbs-up. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I support on keeping the article. Any content that is in violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP should be removed. It doesn't mean that the article should be deleted.Cwater1 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems only fair to note that the article, as of this posting, has been substantially cut by an editor who has !Voted to merge the article. I have asked for discussion of these many cuts on the article Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly passes GNG and BIO per CT55555’s analysis; the alleged crime is international news, it has already had an international impact on the largest war in Europe since World War II, and is certain to have LASTING coverage. The BLP1E objections are absurd in this context, simply cherrypicking pieces from guidelines and ignoring the overall context.  // Timothy :: talk  09:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes our notability policy for BLP subjects. His notability will never go away given the transcendent importance of the leaks. Being known for one thing which is also covered as a topic on Wikipedia is not a justification for deleting. I came to the article to find info about him, not the leaks, and I am certain I am not alone. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the cleaning of sources by other editors. Plus, th circumstances of the leaks are interesting. From a Discord group out of all places.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Texeira is a WP:BASIC pass at this point. WP:BLP1E concerns are understandable but reporting extends beyond simply the leaks and it is very likely that a trial will also provide more coverage - deleting at this point would be a WP:BURO exercise. It should be strongly emphasised to Sandstein and others that 1E has never, by itself, been a pure DELREASON - it is a reason to merge/redirect/rename and delete only when the content is all already at an already-existing article covering the event. In this case, where would the content fit in the leaks article except in an extensive subsection labelled "Jack Teixeira" that would practically be an article by itself? FOARP (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge Even if he's notable, per WP:NOPAGE a separate article from the leaks is not needed. Reywas92Talk 13:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on this multi-day news story, involving a serious crimes, with significant political fallout and other terrible consequences, he is no E*** E**. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge all available information about him is either directly about his involvement in the leak, or it's background provided only in the context of articles about the leak. This is textbook WP:BLP1E.  If there had been enough reliable sources from before April 2023 about other aspects of his life, or if in the future additional writing about him unrelated to the document leak materialized, we'd have enough for a stand-alone article.  Given that we only have source material in the context of one event, that seems like clear WP:BLP1E stuff.  Most of the material in this article related to the leak is already covered in that article, and any additional relevant background information can be added to the narrative of the article about the leak without too much hassle.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Request for close Seven going on eight days of discussion. Appears time for a close. “Keep” appears to lead, although the pro-delete side makes a few valid points, Al beit mostly before the article was expanded. It does not appear much will be gained by further discussion. Juneau Mike (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:42, 22 April 2023 (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.