Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Nauta


 * 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 SNOW keep. It's incredibly unlikely this will be deleted, as the nominator themself has even admitted. Issues with the article can be settled on its talk page. ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Walt Nauta

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

This probably needs a broader discussion.

This may warrant an article in the future, but as of now, we have an article on a valet who is only known to the public because he was charged a few days ago. He hasn't and may not be convicted. We're getting into "do no harm" territory as far as BLP, which is fairly sacred. If it helps, I can throw in some other letters like WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME.

If we have an infobox that says "Known for: being associated with someone" we're on shaky ground. G M G talk  12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Politics,  and United States of America.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. As of today, Nauta is the co-defendant of the first former president of the United States to be charged with a federal crime. That's a major role in a major event in the history of the United States. His role in this event is well documented.
 * Perhaps in the near future he will be a witness for the prosecution instead of a co-defendant, but that won't lessen his significance at all.
 * I can't see any way in which he will not have a major, well-documented role in a major event in the history of the United States. Pha telegrapher (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said. I agree: Keep. (An analogous article: Rose Mary Woods.) Left Central (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. I forgot to include my vote: Keep. (Though it's probably pretty obvious.) Pha telegrapher (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is already a historical significant case, and the fact that Nauta (at this point) uniquely makes this case a conspiracy of named and charged individuals makes his otherwise unremarkable bio important imho. JGDove99 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is critical to keep Waltine "Walt" Nauta's entry on Wikipedia. Trump's case is historical. Nauta is a party to the former president's indictment, having played an instrumental role in endangering America's national security aside from Mr. Trump himself and others in the know who have yet to be revealed. The fact that he was a member of our armed forces makes it all the worse and even more relevant at the same time. Please, keep Nauta's entry on Wikipedia and update the article as needed to reflect the latest developments as the case unfolds. Thank you. 2A00:23C8:1F87:5001:B59A:B814:30D2:6E5A (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This meets the “significant coverage in reliable sources” test (and quite easily, too). Subject has been covered over a series of months (including pre-indictment), with several sources going into detail on his biography/career. Many others in similar roles have articles: List of personal aides to the president of the United States lists the bluelinks. Neutralitytalk 14:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree with
 * pha telegrapher. Conor13 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * KeepThe subject received front-page coverage on the Washington Post of June 19, 2023. Among color photos, the fifth sentence there reads: "And, as a result, Nauta will now share a page in history books ... with the nation's 45th president". If mere "association" isn't valid reason for inclusion, why leave the entry for Morton Sobell? (Extreme analogy. Or is it?) Johannes der Taucher (talk)
 * Keep You cited WP:BLP1E, which says we should not have an article when each of three conditions is met:
 * 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Clearly, this is met.
 * 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. This is also met.
 * 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. This one is not met. The event is significant, we have numerous articles on this (FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Smith special counsel investigation, Federal prosecution of Donald Trump, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents etc.) and his role in it was substantial and well documented.
 * You say you can "throw in some other letters". Let's also look at WP:CRIMINAL: the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies
 * 1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[10] or I guess the victim of this crime is the U.S. as a whole, so this doesn't fit.
 * 2. 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. Yeah Donald Trump is alleged to have stored classified secrets in a bathroom and a ballroom stage, and Nauta is alleged to have helped move the boxes and apparently lied to the FBI in the process. The motivation for the crime and the execution of the crime are unusual, and this has become a well-documented historical event that will get more documentation as we get to a trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person...Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.I'm not sure I expect this will actually be deleted, because everything that touches Trump gets seven articles and four sidebar templates. But we're not supposed to be making articles based on what sources we feel will exist in the future, and we're supposed to be exercising the utmost caution with living people, especially living people who are only known for being connected with a crime for which they have not been convicted.  G M G  talk  16:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There will be more coverage in the future, but there's plenty of coverage on his role in this right now. And making sure we presume innocence until proven guilty is an issue to maintain within the article, not with deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You pretty seamlessly defined CRYSTAL and NOTNEWS.  G M G  talk  22:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep he's clearly notable now after being co-charged with Trump for being in violation of the Espionage Act. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: As discussed on the article's talk page and should have been read WP:BEFORE starting this AFD, This person clearly and completely fails qualification #3 of WP:BLP1E. All 3 must be met for WP:BLP1E to apply.


 * Nothing in the article goes against WP:SUSPECT either. This is about as high-profile of an indictment as could be. No privacy is being violated in the article. It's well sourced and just lays out his biography which has been widely reported over a period of months and it states what is in the highly public indictment. The Helderman article was published 3 months ago.
 * FWIW, WP:CRIMINAL does not apply as this person has not been convicted. He is presumed innocent. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was going to vote delete for WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL, but @Muboshgu's analysis convinced me to vote keep. I'm still a little worried it's WP:TOOSOON. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep No matter the outcome of the trial, this man's name and the association with this trial will make him part of history, like John Dean and John Ehrlichman were to the Watergate Scandal. Msjayhawk (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage and, as per above, doesn't meet point three on WP:BLP1E. -- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 17:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Please Keep the article on Nauta. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Starting now and increasingly as the trial progresses and decades into the future, people will still want to know who this person was and how and why he was involved with our first presidential criminal indictment. His lack of notoriety but role potentially facilitating the president to commit crimes is precisely why we need a curated article on him.  He is now a public figure, like it or not.  He is now and will always be noteworthy even if either/both are found not guilty or plead out in the future because Trump and his name will be tied together and the first thing I did reading the indictment today was look up the article on Wikipedia and thank goodness you hadn't deleted it yet.  People charged with espionage charges potentially putting the entire country at risk are definitely noteworthy now and historically - like Snowden, for example. 209.37.78.233 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment for the future: clearly there's a strong consensus for keep so far, but when the dust has settled, it might be necessary to reconsider this article in a future AfD. If everything we have to say about this man is directly tied up in FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents then maybe it'd be better to say it there, and replace this article with a redirect? If all that this article can add are his childhood school and his being a navy cook, basically irrelevant trivia, it's hardly justified. Elemimele (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Or this person might end up like John Dean was to the Watergate scandal. We don't know at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article about the charges themselves, as it appears on the main page today Thinking this person is tied up in the mess, but not the primary suspect, based on what I've read anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Directly named in a historic criminal indictment. Also referred to directly in at least two other prominent Wikipedia articles, and it makes no sense to have a link to his name as a red (empty) link. Moncrief (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Far and away a lot of coverage regarding Nauta, combined with coverage predating the indictment. SWinxy (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toddst1 re John Dean and existence of Rose Mary Woods and Charles Colson; no prejudice to merger into larger article if and when person's roles in these cases is clear. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article deletion qualification fails point three of WP:BLP1E. Captain Infinity (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I was watching something about Presidents Trump's federal charges and it mention Walt Nauta, I didn't have a clue who he was, so as usual when I need to know something I go to Wikipedia. If the article didn't exist, I wouldn't be able to look it up and find out who he is. Yakacm (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is now a public figure, with extensive coverage in WP:RS. As has been pointed out above, WP:BLP1E does not apply here because the third condition of the rule does not apply. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * KeepI just read the indictment and was searching for the historic co-defendant's backstory. I would suggest expanding it more as being a on the indictment with Trump probably isn't his entire history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6757:F810:F169:4999:B7AB:81E4 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2023 (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.