Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesley Groff: Difference between revisions

Line 43: Line 43:

:::”Do not delete” [[User:Noahmcd|Noahmcd]] ([[User talk:Noahmcd|talk]]) 23:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

:”’Delete and SALT”’ per nom. Also note extensive off-wiki canvassing from people who think Wikipedia is some sort of pro-Epstein conspiracy. <big>[[User:EF5|”’E”']]</big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|”’F”']][[User:EF5/Creations|”’5”']] 22:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

::Also echoing what SL says above – Epstein was one of the worst human beings (can you even call him human?) that the world has ever seen and was an incredibly horrendous individual, but my vote is based on Wikipedia policy and not my personal opinion. <big>[[User:EF5|”’E”']]</big>[[Special:Contributions/EF5|”’F”']][[Special:Contributions/EF5|”’5”']] 13:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

*”’Delete”’ per nom. [[User:Kelob2678|Kelob2678]] ([[User talk:Kelob2678|talk]]) 23:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

* ”’Comment”’: This should probably be deleted, if there is no notability for these people apart from being associated with a guy who was a giant piece of shit. However, I think we should not get too deep in the weeds grousing about the awful canvassing conspiracy, etc etc. We are one of the biggest websites in the world, when we take highly visible actions on hot-button issues people have the right to go on reddit and say we are dumb or whatever. [[User:JPxG|jp]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|g]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]] 02:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:BLPCRIME: Non-notable beyond being connected to a scumbag; no criminal convictions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I feel the need to add that this nomination is based on Wikipedia policy, not on my personal beliefs about the subjects. Per policy, we do not publish biographies for living people who are only notable for have allegedly committed a crime but have not been convicted (WP:BLPCRIME). I strongly condemn the behaviour of Epstein, those criminally associated with him, and everyone who covered up for his crimes. Please keep the discussion civil and assume good faith of fellow editors. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The idea that these four individuals were simply “connected” to Epstein misrepresents the nature of their involvement.

Both victims and federal agents have accused these four of being leading organizers of a sex trafficking ring that allegedly involved billionaires, royalty, and heads of state for several decades. I can add more detail about these allegations if needed.

All four of these individuals have had a large amount of media and press coverage. Each page has at least seven links from major news organizations, and will likely be covered in more detail in the future given the heavy focus on the Epstein files. I can add more sources if needed.

Furthermore, two of the individuals (Kahn and Indyke) have been summoned by the US House of Representatives – clearly the government thinks that they are significant. They also control the Epstein estate and all files relating to the case, which have been a major issue in political discourse within the past few months.

To conclude, I think that removing information about these individuals misrepresents the entire nature of the Epstein organization. It was not just Epstein and Maxwell, there was a large group of individuals involved in every aspect of procuring underage girls. If there are any issues with the content or sources of these articles, I am always open to constructive criticism and will gladly address, but this information is of great importance to the public and should not be deleted.

(Will post it on all four) Noahmcd (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(all four individuals subject to deletion) Noahmcd (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: Multiple TAs have !voted on the talk page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to keep it. The personal assistant to world’s worst sex trafficker is not innocent of wrongdoing themselves. ~2026-87606-0 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, warning: this discussion is being canvassed from this reddit. Funnily, OP linked incorrectly to a talk of this discussion, which resulted in a few confused “don’t delete” there. ~2025-43229-45 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create that reddit post. There have been many mentions of Lesley Groff and other alleged Epstein co-conspirators in the media in the past few days which led to someone else making the post.

Here are the posts that were incorrectly made in the talk page, for visibility.

“Keep. This article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It is sourced to multiple independent reliable sources including The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, Business Insider, The Guardian, The Palm Beach Post, CT Insider, and a peer-reviewed academic journal (Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly). These are not passing mentions. They are substantive, name-specific coverage. 1. WP:GNG is met. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Groff has been the subject of significant coverage across major outlets spanning from 2019 through early 2026, covering the non-prosecution agreement, the FBI co-conspirator list, civil litigation, and the federal criminal investigation. This is not a single news cycle. It is sustained, multi-year coverage. 2. Not BLP1E. Even if one were to characterize this as “one event” (the broader Epstein matter), John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. The significance of an event or the individual’s role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.Groff’s involvement spans multiple distinct legal developments across nearly two decades: the 2007 NPA, the 2019 FBI investigation, civil lawsuits, the 2021 federal investigation closure, and the January 2026 DOJ file releases. Coverage has been persistent, not a brief burst. 3. Comparable articles exist. Wikipedia maintains standalone articles for other Epstein associates including Sarah Kellen, Nadia Marcinkova, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jean-Luc Brunel. The New York Times in 2019 reported that Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross and Nadia Marcinkova were part of the Epstein system. Kellen, Groff, Ross and Marcinkova were listed as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Acosta 2007 plea deal.Groff’s sourcing is on par with or stronger than several of these other figures who retain articles. Deleting this one while keeping the others would be inconsistent. 4. Recent sourcing has only strengthened notability. The January 2026 DOJ file release produced extensive new coverage naming Groff across ABC News, CBS News, The New York Times, SFGate, Al Jazeera, and others. As investigators interviewed dozens of Epstein’s alleged victims as well as his associates and former employees, several names kept popping up, including Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein’s former executive assistant Lesley Groff.Her name appears prominently in newly released scheduling emails and prosecution memos. Once established, notability is not temporary. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability.This coverage is plainly sustained. 5. Academic coverage exists. The article cites a 2021 peer-reviewed article in Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly discussing Groff’s role. This goes beyond routine news reporting and further supports GNG. 6. Not an attack page. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be “worthy of notice” or “note”, that is, “remarkable” or “significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.”The article is neutrally written, well sourced, includes Groff’s denials of wrongdoing, and notes that no criminal charges were brought. It complies with BLP policy. Deleting this article would leave a gap in Wikipedia’s coverage of a matter of significant public interest. The sourcing is robust, spans seven years, and comes from top-tier reliable sources. Strong keep.”

“Seconded. Do not delete”

“I agree, do not delete.”

“This is silencing factual information on a key figure in the epstein case”

“Full and fair transparency expected”

“Keep this entry. Do not delete”

“Do not delete” Noahmcd (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on other page:

“Do not delete”

“I agree, do not delete”

“Do not delete” Noahmcd (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per nom. Also note extensive off-wiki canvassing from people who think Wikipedia is some sort of pro-Epstein conspiracy. ^EF⁵ 22:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also echoing what SL says above – Epstein was one of the worst human beings (can you even call him human?) that the world has ever seen and was an incredibly horrendous individual, but my vote is based on Wikipedia policy and not my personal opinion. ^EF⁵ 13:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply