Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Doe (Panama Papers' whistleblower)


 * 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 no consensus. Although the consensus appears to lean towards the subject passing WP:GNG, it isn't clear enough yet to be definitively the "stronger" argument. Therefore, no consensus has been reached during this discussion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

John Doe (Panama Papers' whistleblower)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minimally sourced stub about the anonymous whistleblower in the Panama Papers story, which really says nothing substantive about him that isn't already in the main article anyway -- and because he's anonymous, there's no real prospect of the article being expanded to say anything more about him than it already does. This was redirected to the main Panama Papers article within two days of creation, but was then reverted back to a standalone article last week on the grounds of a previous contested speedy deletion nom -- but declined speedies only preclude subsequent repeat speedies, and do not veto redirects or AFDs. There's just not enough meat here to warrant a standalone article about "John Doe" as a separate topic from the papers. Delete, or redirect back to Panama Papers. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – notable due to release of "The Revolution Will Be Digitised". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A separate article is appropriate for the individual's role in an highly significant event.--Markov (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A separate article would be appropriate if it had a lot more substanceability and sourceability than this. But if this is all you can do, then we don't need anything more than a paragraph about John Doe within the main article itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for evaluation of possible new information. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No substance there. — JFG talk 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - a separate article is warranted here. significant. wp:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete after transferring sources, information to Panama Papers. There is no point to having a separate article about even a crucial source in a big deal case about whom nothing can be said beyond the fact that he exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Panama Papers, per Bearcat (nominator) and E.M. Gregory. Not notable enough per WP:GNG or WP:42 to rate a standalone article. --Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as not seriously needed for deletion and is still a likely search. SwisterTwister   talk  05:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider the new developments about him : --Markov (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, maintaining the edit history. As stated by others, maintaining a separate article in this case is pointless and only serves to confuse the coverage without adding any illumination. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - There si no coverage of the the subject that is not focussed on the leak itself, and assuming that what you see is what you get, there is very little relvant and interesting information to warrant actually keeping the article. However, it might be valuble as a subsection in the Panama Papers article. I see no reason to redirect, as people are unliekly to search for John Doe, especially now that the event is no longer in the mainsteam media. RailwayScientist (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No longer in the mainstream media, for John Doe himself ? See .--Markov (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – notable due to release of "The Revolution Will Be Digitised". – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Release of The Revolution will be Digitised shows independent notability. Also, I dispute the idea that there are no future prospects for this article; there's no guarantee the whistleblower will stay anonymous forever (though that's not part of my keep argument, due to WP:CRYSTAL). clpo13(talk) 22:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep since the primary Panama Papers article is already spinning off subsidiary articles due to its length. Without John Doe there would be no Panama Papers so giving him due weight there would substantially increase the length of the main article. Also, what I don't see mentioned above is his offer to assist prosecutions, which means that prosecutors, who have already asked the ICIJ for documents, may well issue press statements asking him for help, since how else do you talk to an anonymous source? More coverage. The usual benchmark for notability is five mentions in reliable sources, and he has this several thousand times over, most likely. He is also notable as the first whistleblower in decades to stay out of jail (except Snowden, who barely managed to get to Russia). By the way, I have contributed significantly to the Panama Papers article, and the comment above was extremely heartfelt. We really really can't cope with too much scope creep. If John Doe already has his own article then good. Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it him?Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point; but as he/she chose John Doe as their pseudonym, he, and him, seems a legitimate form of address. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Elinruby. AFAIK, a scarcity of information in itself is no bar to notability, and neither is anonymity. Nor (with a Gsearch throwing up over 160,000 results) is there a lack of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”.
 * As the Panama Papers article is now over 318Kb long, the last thing it needs is to have more stuff emptied into it; if anything, it would make more sense to move anything more than an outline there about the whistleblower to the John Doe page (per the page size guidelines).
 * And as we have articles on all the other players in the story it would be a bit left-handed not to have one on the person who started the ball rolling, n'est ce pas? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per rationale of Elinruby.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Elinruby and Moonraker12. Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The John Doe is an integral part of the overall story to which his goals, his background, his specific beliefs, and his exact behaviors in how he leaked the information are all notable topics that should receive due encyclopedic coverage. I would likely vote otherwise in different circumstances, but he's released his own manifesto and continues to be the subject of much commentary. Questions of what he might possibly do next, of whether or not he truly has no association with any government or non-governmental spying-type group, et cetera are still up in the air. I'm in agreement with the above editors. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:09, 19 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.