Talk:John Doe (whistleblower)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Doe (whistleblower) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 April 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Talk edit
This seems quite insignificant, as John Doe is a standard nickname Bronze2018 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- We're not talking about the nickmane, but about a person who is probably one of the most important whistleblower in the history... "John Doe" is his nickmane, as Banksy is a nickname for an other unidentified person (a graffiti artist). The only way to name this person is "John Doe", till now. --Markov (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- And why doesn't this belong on the Panama Papers page? Bronze2018 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing here and never likely to be anything which wouldn't actually be more appropriate in the Panama Papers page? I think this page should be marked for speedy deletion Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletionMattojgb (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion edit
This article contains no content beyond a rephrasing of the title and this qualifies for speedy deletion under A3 of the speedy deletion criteria. The guidelines regarding notability of people responsible for a single event also seem appropriate Wikipedia:BLP1E and Wikipedia:BIO1E. In particular, in view of the anonymity of this person it seems anything which could be added to this page would more appropriately be on the Panama Papers page.Mattojgb (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mattojgb: This is not what speedy deletion is intended for. The article clearly is about a person involved in a major, notable event and therefore is a very valid stub given what we know so far. Speedy is when it'd be uncontroversial. Remember, A3 states "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion." This has context and shows exactly what the person is. Appable (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Contested deletion edit
This page is about a person every newspapers in the world are talking about. Even we don't know yet a lot about him/her, he/she is the object of judicial pursuits. By the way, he/she became one of the most important whistleblowers in the modern history. The page has a very small content, but we can guess, because of the importance of this person, that the article will grow up. For that reason, I think it's a bad idea to delete it, at least too precipitated. --Markov (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC) We can add that he/she had conversations for almost one year with the german newspaper, it's not just "one single action". --Markov (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia rule indicates : "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"--Markov (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Contested deletion edit
This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... We're all here to get knowledge, which I am hungry for. Hope you understand. Thanks --41.190.3.233 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Whistleblower edit
Simple words 112.196.36.139 (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
John doe edit
Simple 112.196.36.139 (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)