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The result was Withdrawn. No need to waste the community's time. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named in the Pandora Papers[edit]

[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)

This is an indiscriminate collection of information with little encyclopedic value, that should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON #14. The information presented here should be included in the respective biographies of each person that has been named, with an indication of how and why they were named in the leaks. I mean what does it even mean to be named in the leaks? The relevant information here is not the "naming", but the material claims that have been made by the press, e.g. the fact that A.B. seems to be hiding money from the local tax authorities or that C.D. has an offshore shell company. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What does it mean to be named? The lead of the list seems pretty clear to me: people named in the Pandora Papers as shareholders, directors and beneficiaries of offshore companies. pburka (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a finite (if large) pool of potential list entries, thus not indiscriminate. RS will report on notable ones, guiding editors on which entries to include. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvergreenFir. The title sounds a little vague, but the intro spells out what is meant. One might argue whether or not red-linked entries are acceptable, for example, but that's a matter for ordinary editing and the Talk page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Panama Papers is any indication, this will be kept, and as a spin-out of material that would potentially be at home in the main article, it's hard to argue. But I'll play devil's advocate a little bit. Here we have a list of just names and titles, included because they were named in a scandalous document, with no additional information or context other than who they are, regardless of whether they're notable or a private individual, regardless of anything that happens because of what's implied, regardless of the legality of the actions involved, etc. From the get-go that sounds like a risky proposition which doesn't seem in line with the spirit of WP:BLP, and potentially an WP:INDISCRIMINATE problem (yes, it's a clear inclusion criteria, but it's also "absolutely every name that appears in a document trove", which doesn't scream discriminate. What I think does make sense is something already done with the Panama Papers (even if it also has a full list): separate articles with prose and context like e.g. Panama Papers (Asia) and the like. IMO with that style of article, we don't also need this, even if we did decide it wasn't indiscriminate. A comment rather than a !vote just to say this is not ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep while the article could use a notice that offshore accounts are not necessarily illegal, the shear size of the investigation would be notable in itself. 150 media partners in 90 countries including the BBC, Guardian, Washington Post, PBS, El Pais. The results of the reports are even more notable. The Czech Prime Minister election was affected, many police investigations announced, new laws proposed. 130 billionaires mentioned, a dozen heads of state, a couple dozen heads of government (all in 5 days - more is coming) - well this is all approximate - I need a scorecard to keep all the players straight. This list is the scorecard we all need. BTW besides the List of people named in the Pandora Papers and the List of people named in the Panama Papers, there's the List of people named in the Paradise Papers. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Pandora Papers' importance and relevance consists in the identification of people especially in politics, i.e. with a high responsibility to the public and the people. It would not serve anybody's interest to leave out those names or quote just a biased selection in the main article, as "examples". It is also wrong to see it as a mere list, it is a complex linking and funneling page between the Pandora Papers and the biographical articles of the people named in the list. As a matter of course, a fact like this, in a biography of a public figure, must be elaborated on in the biographical articles. If this list was missing, readers would lack an important tool to find relevant info quickly. I also mention similar list with similar purposes which are not debated. Gabel1960 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: perfect timing. just as reporting from a new, much larger document release begins, renewing interest in the Pandora Papers. Obvious keep. —¿philoserf? (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per @Smallbones: ytpks896 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep But remove unsourced entries. Mukt (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Part of history of some 8 billion people. — Pietadè (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We need to keep into account the personalities mentioned in the file. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2021 (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.