Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Panama Papers

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 as this is overwhelmingly clear (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named in the Panama Papers

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

A list of the clients of a particular law firm, however famous or powerful the clients may be, is not encyclopedic and not a suitable topic for a standalone list, particularly where the implication may be drawn that the individuals mentioned have been involved in criminal acts. In most cases we don’t know that for a fact and probably won’t for years. The proper place for this material is in individual biographies and in the main Panama Papers article if it can be justified under our normal criteria for material about living persons. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list purely supports the main article Panama Papers. More than 140 politicians and possibly hundreds of other notable individuals are connected to the leak. To help keep excessive trivia off the main article this list should be kept at least for now. It is already made abundantly clear by the list article, the main article and the sources that simply being associated with the law firm implies no wrongdoing. --hydrox (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have read 10+ articles about Panama Papers so far, including interactive analysis, but have not found such a list. It is useful and will be more so in near future. Zezen (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic is definitely notable, a google search for "people in the panama papers" reveals lots of news articles, e.g. from the ICIJ, the Metro, the Guardian, CNN and Reuters. While we may not know whether the people involved actually broke the law or not right now, the article isn't list of people who broke the law and are named in the Panama Papers, but list of people named in the Panama Papers - not implying that they broke the law. Also, there are a lot of notable/important people who are named in these, the Panama Papers main article will become too long and list-like if we include them in there, and it is also useful for readers to see a list of people named, so just being included in individual biographies won't be useful. How else would you learn that Nurali Aliyev was named in these papers? https://web.archive.org/web/20160404035443/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2782968-Aliyev-Nuralidoc1.html Seagull123 Φ 21:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Using offshore companies is not ilegal in any place that counts. People's names are being dragged through the mud just because they set up or were part of an offshore company at some point. Let's suppose someone steals the Wikipedia editor database today, and all editor's names and emails are published as a result. How would you feel about that? XavierItzm (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty hyperbolical comparison. The page lists notable people and their close associates whose connection with Mossack Fonseca has been singled out in reputable sources. --hydrox (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When there is a WP:RS to back the inclusion, fine. When the source is merely primary, i.e., ICIJ, and therefore per force selectively leaked by ICIJ, it is a pretty arbitrary and unfair muckraking. Think Wikileaks releasing only the names and emails of government employees who edit Wikipedia, as opposed to releasing the entire database. XavierItzm (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem - inclusion in the list, and on ICIJ's website, implies no guilt. UaineSean (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is no guilt. However, the main article currently reads "an operation which offers shady operators plenty of room to manoeuvre." Surely Wikipedia editors wouldn't be as cavalier about their own names and emails being published, should their names be on articles that refer to "shady operators" with "plenty of room to manoeuvre." XavierItzm (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that there are "places that count" in the world is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.74.74.184.103 (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sound selection criteria, inclusion based on coverage in reliable sources, ostensibly useful list for anyone interested in the Panama Papers. I'm not seeing anything here that fails WP:LISTNAME/WP:LISTPEOPLE. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets any WP:GNG. — Ched : ? 00:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's easily notable. It implies no guilt on any party listed, but does provide easy reference of those involved in the Papers. UaineSean (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To proactively deal with any BLP concerns, I think it's worth noting in the article somewhere that inclusion on the list is not necessarily some sort of indictment or accusation of illegal activity. Just saying... GAB^Hello! 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is part of a public record, concerns people of public interest, and is a supplement to the Panama Papers. Ekem (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't see why a useful information (as a contextual reference, not as a legal one) as that is not "encyclopedic" subject. Panama Papers. Massashi_Hosono (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for most of the reasons already mentioned. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anyone advocating for this to be deleted has ulterior motives (i.e. trying to bury this story). 01:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep as a notable developing event. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for multiple reasons mentioned above. - Daniel (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfor all reasons above. Winterysteppe (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful in providing more information related to the Panama Papers. Readers are interested in who are involved and is public information. Many reliable news sources have shown this so it meets the notability guidelines. I see no rationale in deleting it unless one wants to cover it up. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfor all reasons above. José Luiz ^talk 02:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current event, no need to clutter up the article on the papers themselves, and government officials are not entitled to financial secrecy. This page can always be integrated at a later time if needed.74.74.184.103 (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information is now public, no reasons for deletion. --Taichi (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SNOW. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is encyclopedic, well documented in RS and highly notable. No policy or guideline based reason has been advanced for deletion. LK (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep big news story, lots of sources, and high-profile names cited Adalta1884 (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2016 (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.