Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourg Leaks

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.

Luxembourg Leaks[edit]

The result was Snow close as keep, hugely notable news event in Europe. The AfD nomination describes the scandal, but doesn't indicate why the topic wouldn't be article-worthy or why the whole page needed deletion instead of editing. Please don't nominate articles for AfD without a good reason to delete them. Fram (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page seems to be designed to promote a single website based on shaming businesses for normal business practices where no specific civil or criminal conduct is indictaed. Synthetic defamatory implications were made by providing a list of companies and the name of a non-notable private individual against whom no charges have been leveled, as well as naming the former PM of Luxembourg (now EU president) as having "been in office" during the time described. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - currently an ITN suggestion with support. Also the websites purpose doesnt change the articles notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information about a prominent public office-holder, the EU president and former Luxembourg PM, is in the public domain and is certainly notable. As a responsible office-holder, and former office-holder, he is in a position to answer publicly, and can decide whether or not, and how and when, to do so. The list which had been removed from the article is not required there, but can be found elsewhere by anyone interested. To suppress the information altogther would itself be a POV-ish act. Qexigator (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if kept the name may need changing by reference to the information, not to a purportedly "proper name". Talk:Luxembourg Leaks#Name and attribution --Qexigator (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Go google it. This is such a big deal the G20 is about to deal with it. JTdale ^Talk 23:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is widely covered on many serious (WP:RS) news sites. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying that "no specific civil or criminal conduct is indictaed" makes the event described by the article unnotable is absurd. An event's notability is not described by its legality; should be delete the article on slavery in the US because is was legal? Also saying all this exists just to "promote a single website" represents a to me incomprehensible lack of judgement and failure to google. Thue (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see every indication that this article is notable. Google it as it's been said. Perhaps there's reason to suggest that a list of companies isn't included if the allegations are unproven as suggested by the proposer, but then that's not n AFD issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the page exists merely to mirror a blog listing unfounded and defamatory allegations with no documentation given. This is born out by Admin (!) Thue's restoring a list of businesses which are alleged to have "shady" dealings according to the source. If the article is to be kept, it has to be about the business's and official reaction to the leaks, not promoting a POV and implying criminality where none has even been alleged. As to notability, there was just a major scandal about celebrity nude photos being hacked. Would an article listing these celebrities as a whole be appropriate. The article needs oversight at the very least, with no company being mentioned unless it is subject to charges or it comments itself on the allegations. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote. μηδείς as the nominator you have already cast a vote.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As a matter of fact the claim “This page seems to be designed to promote a single website” is false. I added information on the collaborative approach by leading media organizations from around the world to the article. -- Neudabei (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I nominated the article for Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#November_13. I consider this here a tactical move to keep it off the main page for as long as possible (until it's off the news). But take your time if necessary: It will be on the news for a long time. -- Neudabei (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. i think news coverage has made the lemma highly important. and, of course, viceVersa. Maximilian (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2014 (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.