Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epstein Files

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein Files

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list very similar scope to that article which was deleted for the potential of serious BLP issues. This document release can easily be covered in the main Epstein article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the Jeffrey Epstein's associates list AfD: @Objective3000:, @Schazjmd:, @Ianmacm: @Altenmann:, @AndyTheGrump:, @Serial Number 54129:, @Carrite:, @Springee:, @Joseph2302:, @Oaktree b:, @Schminnte:. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible the article could be kept without the specific living people being named? Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NOTNEWS is a fatal objection really. It's another brief burst of attention in a long-running saga that doesn't warrant a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what we they even show, "Stephen Hawking flew to an island at some point and is mentioned once in an email about something else" isn't really worthy of an article. Prince Andrew's name is mentioned once or twice in rather mundane emails about business items, hardly anything needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: The article flirts with violating WP:BLP within the first three sentences. For example, the mention of Bill Clinton alongside Prince Andrew when the former (along with another former President who was mentioned) hasn't been directly implicated in wrongdoing suggests to the reader otherwise and seems the entire overall purpose of the article is bad faith. PaulRKil (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument regarding “not news” is utterly unsustainable. The files this article is about are from a decade ago, when Epstein was being sued. As per the included ref. in the article from the Wall Street Journal, the files were released by a judge based on a lawsuit from the Miami Herald. That was a long-running lawsuit, years in the making, by the way.
Now, someone objects to the presence of some bluelinked names in the article. Ahh, but the article itself clarifies that the blue-linked names, have not been linked to any criminal actions, employing NBC News as a source.
See, just because people who already have Wikipedia entries are mentioned in an article, that does not make the article suitable for deletion. For instance, in the article about 9/11, the name of George Bush is cited. Is that a WP:BLP? No, it is not, because no-one is accusing him of anything! He just happened to be an official at the time. Likewise, NBC News informs us that Epstein liked to mention some names, and that those names therefore show up in the files, but no-one is accusing them of anything! The criteria that requires deletion of any articles about any distasteful matters that for good reason happen to include the names of innocent people would require us to delete, for instance, the Tate–LaBianca murders, because it mentions Roman Polanski in the lede… but he’s not accused of anything because he wasn’t even there! Now, is that a WP:BLP? Remember: WP:NOTCENSORED.
Finally, deletion is not cleanup. Hey, if anyone doesn’t like that NBC news mentions Cate Blanchett in relation to this entry, I think it is unencyclopaedic to remove her, but you could remove her if you wanted to, as opposed to nuking the article.XavierItzm (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what do they prove? Person XYZ went to an island on ABC flight, it's pretty much routine stuff without any further context. These are just a few documents in the larger story and don't have anything special in them. I'm not seeing stand-alone notability without some sort of context. So what if Mr X visited an island? Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about proof of anything. This is about a legal dispute started in 2018 by a major newspaper, with coverage from WP:RS in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and resolved in early 2024.XavierItzm (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should really be about the legal dispute, not the random documents. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what our Wikipedia article is all about. About the legal dispute. Read it. The AfD closer should note most objections appear to be rehashes of the critiques to the previous AfD. This is a substantially different article. XavierItzm (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This article is on the same subject as the speedily deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list and was created by the same editor. The article essentially accuses Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton of criminality by mentioning them and then providing a list of names not linked to any criminal actions omitting these two. The article is a gross violation of WP:BLP. Editing out the most egregious parts will still result in an article with little purpose other than to suggest criminality. I also feel the creator of these two articles should be sanctioned. WP:G10 WP:G4. O3000, Ret. (taok) 14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that the article accuses anyone about anything. In fact, like the cited NPR source says: “The fact that an individual is named or that they socialized with Epstein does not indicate wrongdoing.” Anyway, people feel sensitively about members of the Royal and Clinton families, so I’ve removed their names.XavierItzm (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

people feel sensitively about members of the Royal and Clinton families.... This has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity about certain people. This has to do with BLPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. As poo the previous AfD linked above, a WP:BLP violation magnet, and facile disclaimers such as 'Not everyone named in the documents is thought to be implicated in criminal behaviour' give a thoroughly misleading impression as to what the documents actually contain. Furthermore, the attempt to portray documents submitted in a court case as somehow notable independently of the case, and of the individuals the case was about, inherently violates WP:NPOV. We already have articles covering this subject matter, in context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The files are pretty much a nothing sandwich... Lists of emails and people that flew to his island, flight logs, nothing of importance. A random collection of documents that really only show what airplanes went to an airport on an island without mentioning Epstein. At best, they can get a one line mention in his article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability, no encyclopedic content. - Altenmann >talk 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the related AfD, I'm basing this on WP:NOPAGE as this content is not notable (or even understandable) without the context of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein (both articles already include information about the unsealed documents). Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the last AfD and the continued problems with independent notability. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.