Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Epstein's associates list

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 Speedy delete‎. Editors agree this article is a potential violation of our WP:BLP policies. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Epstein's associates list[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)

Article about a list of people who were named as having “liaisons” with Epstein's sex trafficking network. These “associates” often have vague connections or are accusers, not accused. A few names are included as well as a link to the court docs with 187 names. Appears to serve little purpose other than to cause harm to individuals. As a WP:BLP violation,. WP:G10. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE. There is no "associates list"; the current media kerfuffle is over court documents being ~~re-released~~unsealed, without names being redacted. The names include accusers, employees, and investigators. This "event" should be a sentence or two in Jeffrey Epstein. Schazjmd (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not needed, and they key points can be covered at Jeffrey Epstein.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per WP:BLP. It appears that putting on this list is an insult of a private person. - Altenmann >talk 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I've just cleaned up content that appears to have been skirting dangerously close to outright WP:BLP violations, if it wasn't actually broken, and it seems self-evident that any article treating this 'list' as some sort of independently notable topic is doomed to act as a magnet for the same problems. Context matters a lot for this material, and this is absolutely not an appropriate to deal with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and per above, speedy. But why hasn't anyone tagged it? Per the nominator's suggestion, it's a pretty clear G10—suggesting that [people were "associates" of Epstein! WTF?—but out of respect to Objective3000 I won't do it myself. ——Serial 20:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it fits CSD. But thought it could be argued by others that it's fixable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and tbf it looks like ATG has cleared the egregious stiff out. ——Serial 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Associates list" is a right wing meme. What this is is an index of proper names mentioned in the course of one of the cases against Jeffrey Epstein. The very title casts aspersions, BLP violation. Carrite (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So many issues here. Springee (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:BLP/WP:BLPCRIME violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd perhaps wait until something more concrete comes from this "list"; criminal charges or court dates or something. Simply being on a list isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not even a list, but a collection of court documents. That's not even breaking the surface of vandalism BLP issues that this article is already attracting like a magnet. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 20:38, 4 January 2024 (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.