Talk:John Wick (whistleblower)

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 July 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal.

This article was nominated for deletion on null. The result of the discussion was keep.

A fact from John Wick (whistleblower) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 June 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that John Wick, who passed on information that led to an ongoing scandal about expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, once commanded the Royal Army Ordnance Corps's Mobile Bath Unit?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/June.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Notability

I think WP:BLP1E applies here, Wick is only notable for one event, and does not meet the criteria for an article. Martin451 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We don't know the full extent of how this story is going to unfold, and the expenses scandal in the UK is a huge issue. He may not require rigorous documentation, but it seems legitimate to keep a reference here about him. Tom Coates (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = If John Wick the Games designer is notable then a figure in the biggest political scandal in decades is notableFivestarfrankie (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised that this is being suggested for deletion. This event is a significant political matter which will be examined closely in the future. The motivations, political history and other details of even the middle man will, i guess be of encyclopaedic importance. 217.42.85.209 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]