Testwiki:Articles for deletion/John Wick (whistleblower)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

John Wick (whistleblower)

Template:La (delete) – (View log)

WP:BLP1E applies here. Wick is notable only for one event, and is only notable for that as he is the messenger, not someone at the centre of the story. Also WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS Martin451 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Martin451 (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Simply calling him a messenger understates what this man has done. He is responsible for putting out in public the information that has caused the biggest British political scandal in modern history. WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." The event is highly significant, and would not have come about the way it did were it not for this man. 217.44.125.64 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The event is very significant, however his part was small. He was given this information, which he then passed onto the press. If it had not been him, someone else would have been found. The real leaker/whistle blower is still anonymous. Thus he is just a messenger. He is notable only for one event, and has a small part in that event. Martin451 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. If any information comes out that will give us more than a single sentence, we can consider splitting the article out. Fences and windows (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree the article is too short. However, he was revealed as the whistleblower only a few hours ago. Come tomorrow, when the newspapers have come out for that day, I suspect the article will build up rapidly. 217.44.125.64 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - for now. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, I know, but I imagine he'll rapidly garner notability in the next fortnight or so. — Wereon (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Key figure in what is certainly an historical event, even if such a high standard as permanent historical interest is the criterion. DGG (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: subject's actions led to this.--It's me...Sallicio!^$\oplus$ 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for goodness sake. Clear notability, per DGG. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: a) per WP:SNOW and b) I'm certain this article will expand a lot in the next few days as new reports come out on him. D.M.N. (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into, and redirect to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. Being a big part of a major political controversy may bode well for future notability. But that notability right now looks like it is for one event, and a section "John Wick" in the article, plus a redirect, is sufficient. If he does become more notable, for example takes up a political role or some such, we can always add an article in future. Right now his sole notability is that he happens to be the person who provided the data to the media. It could have been anyone, and it's BLP1Event only with no visible notability outside it. Big event, yes. Grounds for Wikipedia notability at this point, no. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(Note also per sources, Wicks isn't the source of the data or the fees office "whistleblower" in fact, but was the middle-man for the as-yet unnamed source. if the media are to be believed his sole role was to take the data from the source and offer it to the media.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This should never have been nominated for deletion. This man played the pivotal role in the greatest political scandal Britain has seen in decades and the greatest constitutional crisis Parliament has seen in centuries. The idea that John Wick is not notable enough to merit a distinct wikipedia article is frankly preposterous and i can only assume that one of Wikipedia countless busybody, non contributing edit, types has decided to waste everyones time by nominating this article for deletion. siarach (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people play "pivotal roles" in notable incidents who themselves are not considered notable. Apart from "passed on data from person A to person B", what exactly is notable about John Wick, or is it just that he played a role in the given incident? In the context of this controversy, so far he is the delivery boy. He is not the leaker, and he was not a decision maker in the case, he was simply a go-between for a source and a recipient newspaper, a once-off minor role. If it hadn't been him, some other person would have been asked to act as go-between. In this context the person "John Wick" isn't by usual norms, notable, he could have been any person chosen by the actual leaker/source (who would be notable). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: I expect this article will be expanded over the next few days, clearly notable enough for an article. Dean B (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. A clearer-cut example of of a BLP1E and BIO1E I cannot imagine off the top of my head. Being the middle-man in a political scandal whose name will probably be forgotten very soon as the expenses scandal moves on and being a member of the Carlton Club is nowhere near enough satisfying notability. - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be expanded quite a bit, but contrary to what some people are suggesting a middleman isn't a case of if Wick hadn't done it someone else would have. A middleman is risking just as much as the whistleblower, and consequently finding someone to do the job would have been very hard. A middleman is just as important as the whistleblower in getting the information from the source to the public, and due to that very significant and vital role I believe he is notable; "WP:BLP1E says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." 86.156.181.170 (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

His role was not substantial. He got given some information, and he sold it to the Telegraph. What is substantial is the MPs, the Telegraph, Michael Martin, etc. Fences and windows (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge as above - a clear example of WP:BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment To let people know if curious, I am not contributing to this discussion because I believe that, as the author and principal contributor, it would be wrong of me to get involved in a debate over deleting something I have been heavily involved with. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - not notable enough to warrant an article, he's only really a middleman --Razakel19 (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Sometimes involvement in one event transcends WP:BLP1E. This seems such a case, as the coverage is so extensive, the event so significant, and Wikiusers are likely to have specific questions about the subject. - Vartanza (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what a redirect does. To the extent there is information of encyclopedic interest about him, so far it can all be said in one line, perhaps two, and all pertains to the parliamentary matter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As other people have said WP:BLP1E allows an article on a person if that person has undertaken a significant role in a significant event. Middleman or no middleman, John Wick played a significant role in one of the biggest political scandals of our time. 86.151.18.178 (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note the wording: "allows". Not "requires". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge as above Besides the fact that his role in this scandal is summed up in a single line, the article seems very negative for a WP:BLP, which is a cause for concern. It seems this article only exists to show how crappy this guy's life has been. None of the content has anything to do with his personal notability, or has any connection to the event.-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid I feel I must break my self-imposed silence on this instance. His involvement is summed up in one line in the introduction, but a whole section in the article, entitled "Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament", exists devoted to his involvement. Plus, with regards to it seeming to be a negative BLP, I did do my best to make the article balanced; the £7 million worth of debts I felt needed to be included since the Daily Mail suggested it was a possible motive behind his disclosure. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not see the section you are referring to (I think you copied the title of the article instead of the section title). I see the section "Source of information", which is, as I said before, a single line. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
      • John_Wick_(whistleblower)#Life and career See it now? See in that section hyperlinked that there is a sub-section, entitled "Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament", all about his involvement that goes beyond one line? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, that's exactly what I mean. I was talking about the main article about the scandal: there, his involvement is summed up in the section "Source of information", which is only one sentence. The few sentences of actual content in the John Wick article could easily be merged to the main article under that section, since one-sentence sections are strongly discouraged anyway. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
          • With regards to you talking about Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, thank you for clearing that up. I hope you understand my confusion seeing as nowhere was it clear you were referring to that article when you spoke of "None of the content has anything to do with his personal notability, or has any connection to the event", and I naturally assumed the primary article you would be referring to is the one that is being discussed for deletion. Plus, I do not think an article with over 3,000 characters is just a "few sentences of actual content", of which I am a little offended that you seem to suggest most of the article isn't actual content. As for the lack of info in the main article, that could always be expanded without needing a merge. On another note, do you still have BLP concerns? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (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.