Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality Winner


 * 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. Consensus is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Reality Winner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BLP1E. All content should go in other others about the event.Casprings (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Widespread reporting on this subject for a basis of notability on par with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. bd2412  T 02:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)d
 * Delete - WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are the overwhelmingly authoritative community rules on this. Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did much more to become lastingly notable than Winner, and have had and this notability continue due to their world image of being whistleblowers (Snowden even frequently does interviews about his views on different privacy issues till this day). I must therefore agree with the opener of this discussion. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * is applying the wrong standard. Yes, Assange, Snowden and Manning, have received more coverage than Winner.  That is hardly surprising, since their whistleblowing has been covered, for years.  The appropriate standard to apply is whether coverage of winner remains focussed solely, or largely, on her leak.  When extensive reporting focusses, in detail, on her life, her academic career, her military career, her hobbies, her pets, her social media activity, her family, and her apparent loneliness, then she is clearly not an example of BLP1E.  No offense, but I suspect 77.66.12.7 is falling into a common trap.  I suspect he or she holds the personal opinion that Winner shouldn't be notable.  But notability is based on the opinions of reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of wikipedia contributors.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One question: was she notable before this event happened? 77.66.12.7 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Were Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning notable before leaking? Was Daisy Ridley notable before starring in Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Is it in any way surprising that most BLPs needed a notable event in order to become notable? What you're basically saying is "was she notable before becoming notable?" κατάστασ  η  07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is really simple . Winner became notable when reliable sources chose to write about her, her hobbies, her family, her academic career, her USAF service.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Major new sites including nytimes, washingtonpost, independent, bbc, guardian, cnn have carried news on this, it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS per-se cause it has developed into something bigger including her being charged by the NSA..This will develop further.-- Stemoc 02:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I ask myself if in five or ten years when I am talking to someone unfamiliar with the early months of the Trump presidency, will I be want to be able to explain who this person is, my answer is that yes I probably will. KConWiki (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: There is potential for this individual to gain the notoriety of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Reality Winner has been everywhere recently and aside from the valid argument of NOTNEWS, we have to consider that this subject could be poignant to the course of the Trump presidency. If this is a drop in the ocean, then yes, I will then support deleting this. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.66.12.7 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * She falls weakly on the side of notability at this point. As of writing this, it's a fringe case. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E. Like shooting knishes in a barrel. &rarr; StaniStani 03:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources and there are only going to be more. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as the event was notable. At present she is a person notable for one event, so we might consider renaming.  TFD (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence WP:BLP1E. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- WP:BLP specifically says that BLP1E only applies "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Ms Winner is not just a whistleblower, she is the first whistleblower to be captured during the Trump Presidency. So she will be covered in that context, over and above her (central) role in her particular leak.  The next paragraph of WP:BLP offers John Hinckley, Jr. as an example of an individual many people would say is an example of a BLP1E, who nevertheless merits a standalone article...  "John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significanI would urge t and his role was both substantial and well documented."  I suggest Winner has much more in common with Hinkley than with genuine non-notable individuals who found themselves at the centre of a controversy, by accident, and who are only covered as a footnote to that event.  Atlantic magazine, for instance, published an article entitled Who Is Reality Winner?  This article is clearly an attempt to cover Winner's life outside the context of her leak.  The Atlantic article isclearly far from the only publication attempting to look into Winner herself, and cover her life, outside of the context of her leak.  I would urge nominator to interpret BLP1E in a less extreme manner.  Please understand how the wikipedia really works.  Topics are linked.  Some topics are strongly linked to multiple topics.  I suggest the more useful way of interpreting BLP1E is to only apply it to individuals who are really only linked to one topic, the incident where they played a subordinate role. I suggest BLP1E should never be applied to individuals, like Winner, who are strongly linked to multiple other topics.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One event is one event. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were trying to make a substantive point here, could you please try harder? Geo Swan (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not the type of person BLP1E is meant to apply to. Those are mostly people involved in an event with a single, simple focused nexus: an accident, a shooting, a witness, a bystander at an occurrence, and the like. Winner, on the other hand, is at the center of what is unfolding as a fairly serious intelligence, foreign policy, media (vis-a-vis The Intercept), and U.S. political story with multiple facets, plus her involvement in criminal and/or other investigative proceedings about the case.  You don't have to be an Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning to be a notable person in a context like this.  --MCB (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Geo Swan. This is a clearly developing story that could reach the notability level of Snowden and Manning. It's much too early to nominate this for deletion. Alternatively, if the consensus is that this is a case of WP:BLP1E, then rename the article to "Arrest of Reality Winner" or "2017 NSA leak" and make it about the event, not a BLP. κατάστασ  η  06:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WRT the suggestion the article be redirected... currently the article is linked from The Intercept, List of whistleblowers, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Pluribus International Corporation, TrumpiLeaks, Henrietta M. King High School. First, in each of these articles, the most natural, most supportable link, will be Reality Winner, not 2017 NSA Leak. If a reader clicks on a link to Reality Winner why hould we confuse them by taking them to an article entitled 2017 NSA Leak?  FWIW, 2017 NSA Leak is a bad article name, because we are only four months into the Trump Presidency, and the prospect of additional NSA leaks is high.  Further, fast forward a couple of years, and most readers are unlikely to remember which year the leak took place.  They are more likely to remember this by her name.  Additionally, while we sometimes take a BLP, and give it a new name, out of respect for the privacy of an individual who became notable without ever running for office, or committing a crime, or seeking to become a public figure by seeking to be a rock star, porn star, sports star, movie star, who became notable by accident.  But winner actively chose to be a whistleblower.  So she did not become a public figure by accident.  So why should she be eligible for the obfuscating courtesy renaming we should reserve for people who became notable through no fault of their own?  Geo Swan (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. Necessary and relevant content can be used in other related articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep temporarily without prejudice to later merging. Experience has shown that major US leakers tend to become persons of lasting public interest (cf. Manning, Snowden), and it seems clear that this case will generate a lot of coverage in the weeks and months to come. If and when we get a decent article about the leak or the leaked material itself, it is conceivable that this bio could be merged into it should Winner herself not quite reach the level of notoriety or prominence of other leakers.  Sandstein   09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restructure to be about the event and rename accordingly, e.g. June 5, 2017 NSA leak. Contrary to Geo Swan's comment above, she did become a public figure by accident. She chose to leak but she didn't want to be known for it. Her identity was only revealed because of a sloppy reporter failing to remove the tracking information from the documents. The whole point of WP:BLP1E however is to prevent articles about people who are in the public spotlight against their will and who are - like Winner - unlikely to be ever known outside a single event. So the correct way is to restructure this article to be about the event and rename it accordingly per WP:BIO1E. Regards  So Why  09:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You write "she didn't want to be known for it"... If you, or I, were to knock back a six-pack of beer, then get into our car, drive away, and promptly drive over a toddler, our friends would believe we "didn't want" to commit toddlercide.  Nevertheless, even our best friends would not dispute that the toddlercide was a direct consequence of our decision to drive drunk.  This is entirely different than the sober driver who drives over a toddler who unpredictably runs into the middle of traffic.  So, in my opinion, to call her notability an "accident" is a huge distortion of the word "accident". You write "BLP1E ... prevents articles about people who are in the public spotlight against their will."  Pick any of the high profile murderers we cover, say Phil Spector ... they didn't want to be in the public spotlight, either.  They hoped to get away with their crime, without detection.  You write: "the correct way is to restructure this article to be about the event and rename it accordingly".  Well, is their relevant, policy compliant material, specifically about Ms. Winner, covered by sober, responsible newspapers, that would be off-topic in an article that was solely about the leak?  Yes, of course there is.  I think this means following your suggestion would be a lapse from WP:NOTCENSORED.  Further, I think you are ignoring what BIO1E actually says.  Doesn't it say "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."  That Winner's leak is "highly significant" is quite clear by the amount of coverage it has triggered.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I do something publicly, I have to expect publicity. But if I do something privately and anonymously, like Winner did, I don't have to expect publicity. Ask yourself this: If the reporter at The Intercept had been smart enough to cover the tracking markers, would we know about Winner? Most certainly not.. We only know about her role in this leak because of sloppiness she couldn't control and most likely didn't expect.
 * Your example shows the problem with your argument. Phil Spector is not notable because of a murder, he was notable before. On the other hand, to take a truly random example I just picked out of the search box, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are not articles but redirects to Murder of Lee Rigby despite the huge amount of coverage. Why? Because neither is notable outside this single event.
 * We can use the murder-example for that next point as well: Murder of ... articles oftentimes include biographical information of the murderers (see example above) without it being off-topic. Why would it be different in case of another (alleged) crime?
 * At this time, the article is a WP:PSEUDO biography, something WP:BIO1E explicitly warns against creating. As to whether the leak is "highly significant", one should remember that in this day and age many things receive a lot of coverage but it's not really clear whether the leak will be remembered in a few months or even weeks. The guideline mentions assassins of major political leaders as an example (so the "highly significant" event would be the assassination); I don't think Winner is in the same category, is she? Regards  So Why  10:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , you offer the examples of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale asserting it is appropriate for these to be redirects, to the event. I think your assertion is based on Adebolajo and Adebowale's role not triggering significant press coverage that is not about the event. Is that correct?  So, is this true for Winner?  Absolutely not.  Did you see The Daily Show lead off Tuesday's episode with a segment on Winner's leak? Much of The Daily Show coverage was on how distracting her name was. He terminated by claiming white people could no longer mock black people for having weird names.  That Winner's unusual name triggered coverage is clearly off-topic for an article solely about the leak.  As for whether Winner expected to get away with her leak, without detection. Irrelevant, since she actively chose to perform the action, she is not a passive victim of circumstance.  You write "At this time, the article is a WP:PSEUDO biography".  When interpretation of a policy is in conflict with interpretation of a guideline, policy trumps the guideline.  As per WP:DELETE deletion is not based on the current state of the article.  Deletion is based on the notability of the topic.  We keep weak articles when the topic, itself, is notable.  I am not going to ask you to explain why you characterize the article as a pseudo-biography, since it is completely irrelevant.  This is irrelevant here.  And it would have been irrelevant in any other AFD you used this argument, in the past, when the individual was notable based on coverage in reliable sources, not used in the article.  Please don't use this bad argument in future.  I just re-read PSEUDO, and found it is not even a guideline, just an essay.  Lol.  I have an essay, as well, that takes the opposite position.  Essays can never trump genuine policies  Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is where we disagree. I don't see how making fun of her name equals coverage of her independent of the leak. Colbert yesterday said her arrest proves that "Trump is at war with Reality". Is that a sign that she is notable independently from the leak? I think not.
 * Again, saying it is "irrelevant" does not make it irrelevant. She wouldn't be known unless for the actions of a third-party. Which is different from people acting in ways they know will generate publicity.
 * As for WP:PSEUDO, it might be an essay but it's one linked to from WP:BIO1E, which changes its "value". Imho, it fits perfectly, since all coverage of her is in connection with the event.
 * But let's keep it at a strictly policy-level, shall we? WP:BLP1E states we should avoid having an article about a person, if the person is only notable because of a single event, is and will likely be otherwise WP:LOWPROFILE (which again is an essay that is linked to from a policy) and the event if not significant (which here means no persistent coverage in RS).
 * I think we can agree that #1 is the case here?
 * As for #2, the linked essay defines a low-profile individual as a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention. This is where we disagree (see above) but I think based on that supplement's definition it's safe to argue that her media attention was that for a low-profile individual.
 * Criterion #3 is the one we need a WP:CRYSTALBALL for since the significance of the event can only be judged in hindsight. I would argue to err on the side of caution here and assume that this leak will likely be forgotten in a few weeks (incidentally, today there is basically no more such coverage, with all media outlets focusing on Comey's testimony. Since #3 requires the event to be significant and her role in it to be substantial, her central role does not change that.
 * PS: There is no need to remind me of what does or does not constitute valid reasons for deletion. I'm well aware. As always, reasonable people can disagree in such matters and this is the case here. We both read the applicable policies and guidelines and came to different conclusions. Time will tell whose was correct Regards  So  Why  13:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , for the record, the three numbered points you refer to here are from WP:BLP, correct? No, I do not agree (1) applies. Coverage of Winner has already expanded beyond the event.  Coverage of her family background, USAF background, coverage of her several hobbies, social media activities, her loneliness, as in the article in Atlantic magazine -- are you really going to claim this is coverage of the leak?  WRT (2) are you saying we should only cover proud criminals, who are happy to have their crimes known, while we should suppress coverage of criminals who thought they would get away with their crimes without detection?  If your non-policy supplementary wikidocument implies this, you and I should go to that wikidocument's talk page, and start a discussion to have that passage trimmed, clarified or rewritten.  WRT to your assertion around (3)...  Crystal ball?  How much time did you spend performing web searches of Winner?  Did you actually start to read any of those articles?  I am frankly puzzled that you don't recognize that she has ALREADY triggered significant coverage, significant coverage of her, personally, over and beyond her role in the leak.  You wrote you "assume that this leak will likely be forgotten in a few weeks..."  Please bear in mind that we are not Donald Trump's spin doctors.  Trump, and his spin doctors, would be happy if every topic related to his campaign's controverial ties to Russia was forgotten. They'd be happy if public interest in the embarrassing links faded, and the wikipedia quietly deleted every article that touched on them, almost as if they never occurred.  What I don't understand is what policy you think offers any support for this kind of rewriting of history...  They wikipedia is full of articles on notable topics where interest has faded from the period when they were extensively covered in the press.  O.J. Simpson was the focus of extensive coverage, when he was charged with, and stood trial for, murdering his ex-wife and her boyfriend.  He seemed to fade from sight, after he was acquitted. Isn't the logical extension of your argument here, that we then should have deleted the article about him?  You do realize that one of the most important uses of an encyclopedia is to allow the interested reader to look up topics that have faded from the popular press?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. As for #1, it is probably a difference of opinion based on how one understands "in the context of". I understand it to mean "because of", i.e. is she only being covered because of the event? That is the case.
 * As for #2, I'm not saying we should not cover her, I am saying we should cover her role in the event in an article about the event.
 * And as for #3, I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying she has not received a lot of coverage, I'm saying the leak will probably not be considered significant in a few weeks / months time. #3 requires both though.
 * Trust me, I'm certainly no friend of Trump and I am still not sure how so many people can support him. Yet, saying we should cover the leak, not the leaker, is not "spin doctoring" nor is it "forgetting". In fact, an article about the leak is far more "damaging" in this context than an article about the leaker. And again, the article being about the leak and covering Winner's role in it there is perfectly acceptable based on the aforementioned policies and guidelines and does not make the content any less useful. It just directs the focus to the real subject, the leak.
 * Basically, when it comes to BLPs such as this, the question is this: Would the event be notable without knowing about Winner? Certainly. Would Winner be notable without the event? Certainly not (unlike OJ Simpson who was a notable athlete and actor before the murders). So it makes sense to have an article about the event that is notable whether the leaker is known or not but not about the leaker who is only notable because of it. And again - I cannot stress this enough - I am not arguing to remove the information, just to restructure it. Regards  So Why  13:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically, when it comes to BLPs such as this, the question is this: Would the event be notable without knowing about Winner? Certainly. Would Winner be notable without the event? Certainly not (unlike OJ Simpson who was a notable athlete and actor before the murders). So it makes sense to have an article about the event that is notable whether the leaker is known or not but not about the leaker who is only notable because of it. And again - I cannot stress this enough - I am not arguing to remove the information, just to restructure it. Regards  So Why  13:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is likely to be covered by press more than this.  M h hossein   talk 09:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restructure to be about the event per User:SoWhy. The leak is notable, and is the only basis of Winner's notability. Winner's personal exercise habits, etc, are not, despite prurient coverage in tabloids and all too many broadsheets. If, in the future, Winner becomes notable beyond the leak, then a separate article for Winner can be created accordingly. zazpot (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep She's received substantial coverage over the past few days and that's going to continue, per Sandstein's comments.LM2000 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restructure to be about the event, as per User:SoWhy. See WP:BLP1E and Who is a low-profile individual: "A low-profile individual is a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention". No strong opinion, though... maybes it will soon become adequate to have a specific article on the person. --a3nm (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:BD2412 and User:Sandstein's rationales.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as it says in Biographies_of_living_persons:
 * "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: ... If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."
 * And in this case the event _is_ significant and the role of the person substantial and well documented. So the very reasons given for opening this deletion discussion speak in favour of keeping the article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per other arguments above in favor of keeping the article. Also, for crime perpetrators, WP:PERPETRATOR's criterion #2 says: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." WP:BLP does advise caution wrt articles about alleged perpetrators not convicted of a crime, but George Zimmerman has an article even though he was acquitted, and his crime was much more "mainstream" compared to Winner's - who I think meets the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" criterion of WP:PERPETRATOR. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per BD2412 and FireflySixtySeven. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, her case is widely reported in mainstream news. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's notable, and her eventual trial will likely generate even more news coverage. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG, BLP1E doesn't apply to central figures of events, and we cannot crystal ball if she'll return to being low profile. Consensus can change later / recentism so no prejudice for BLP1E applying later. Fine here for now. Widefox ; talk 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable -- Firefishy (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, She is notable and will most likely become even more so in the coming months.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Because I came here expecting to find the page. Cutelyaware (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Winner is at least as notable as John Kiriakou and others who have been prosecuted for leaking, who typically get their own pages.Amyzex (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO, specifically point two of WP:PERP. The notability of this case is on par with historical cases such as Robert Lee Johnson and Christopher John Boyce as well as more contemporary cases such as Snowden. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Geo Swan. That's put very well. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject does not meet points 2 or 3 of BLP1E to qualify for deletion. Specifically point 3 says; If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The "individual's role" in the event is central, she was the event. No Reality Winner, no event. For that matter, there are numerous sources now covering this, there are only going to be more later. This will be well documented if it already isn't. I also agree with Geo Swan's point above about her not being "just a whistleblower". Mr rnddude (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly notable.  Rob van  vee  07:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep—She's not incidental to the event, and I would argue that her notability derives from two separate events. There have been numerous leaks of data from the NSA and about the Russia-Trump probe, few of which yet confer notability on a leaker. In Winner's case, however, there has been a prosecutorial decision to charge Winner under the Espionage Act. Given their historical rarity (just 13, ever) and prolonged media attention to this rarity, I would argue that every person who is prosecuted for espionage for leaking to the press is notable.--Carwil (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The event is clearly notable, and it makes more sense to write an article on her rather than something like 2017 NSA leak or whatever. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I am glad to see that many of you want to keep this, in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I don't contribute because your rules are too rigid in many ways, and if you delete this article you are proving that Wikipedia is based on false values.  Many of your pages about large organizations and book authors were put up as advertisements, hiding behind your anonymity.  If Wikipedia cannot accept pages related to heroic people and controversial issues, you have outlived your usefulness.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Lann (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. I agree that it is very different from the case of Chelsea Manning. Chelsea harmed many good people and the interests of US. In contrast, Reality revealed an important report about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that supposed to be made public at the first place, but for strange reasons was covered up. If that disclosure harms anyone's interests, that were interests of "bad guys", whoever they are. And she is going to be prosecuted? That is what makes this case highly notable, with the subject looking pretty much like good heroes of this movie persecuted by the bad agency. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. She has admitted to FBI agents that she disclosed information knowing "the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation". Also, she is notable as the first person charged under the Espionage Act for revealing information classified as Top Secret during the Trump administration. (My very best wishes, it doesn't matter whether she is different or similar to Chelsea Manning. I don't know if she good or bad. I'd rather that we not get into that here, or perhaps at all, given WP:NPOV.)--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Seriously, why is this discussion still open? FallingGravity 05:03, 12 June 2017 (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.