Sarah Bils: The main reliable source with nontrivial coverage about this subject is this Wall Street Journal article .  I found some miscellaneous coverage stemming from this article in CNN and The Telegraph , but the combination of these sources is insufficient at this time to justify encyclopedic notability.  WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E are also relevant: at the moment, we only know that Bils was the administrator of certain pro-Russia social media accounts, but there is no confirmation whether she was the source of any classified documents or whether she committed any crimes.  A prior version of this article made many claims about her that were extremely poorly sourced (e.g. to tabloids or primary sources, which are both disallowed for sensitive BLP information, see WP:BLPPRIMARY ).  Mz7 ( talk ) 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women , Military , Russia ,  and United States of America .  Mz7 ( talk ) 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete, seems like a WP:NOTNEWS case right now.  It's possible she would become notable in the future if media coverage is sustained and/or it's proven that she shared classified information.  ( t · c ) buidhe 22:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions .  Mz7 ( talk ) 22:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The page is terribly written, but the subject is very significant in the big story of 2023 Pentagon document leaks , and her involvement was documented in publications by WSJ [27] , CNN [28] and other RS [29] , [30] .  As sources say [31] , "She built up a sizeable social media following on Twitter, Telegram and YouTube, emerging as the face of Russian propaganda, raising money and selling merchandise for the Russian cause.... Donbas Devushka Telegram account played a key role in the dissemination of intelligence documents allegedly leaked by Airman First Class Jack Teixeira, by reposting them onto an array of obscure online chat rooms. That needs to be said more clearly on the page. She is very much notable, hence the "keep". No one says she is actually committed a crime, and no, she was not the original source of information, but rather a facilitator, according to the publications. My very best wishes ( talk ) 22:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete . Thousands of people have sizeable social media followings. Dozens of people may have spread copies of documents sourced to Teixeira. I am not convinced Bils’s role is yet beyond the scope of the guidelines CRIME and 1E.  — Michael Z . 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - this combination of recent news, allegations, her statements, speculation, and tabloid coverage is not WP:GNG / WP:BASIC . The WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E / WP:NOTNEWS policies further weigh against the encyclopedic value of this article at this time. Beccaynr ( talk ) 22:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Administrator note below is copied what appears to be a keep !vote from an IP on the article's talk page. Primefac ( talk ) 07:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There may be more coming out. The Wall Street Journal should not qualify for a reliable source because they have published so many items which were not sourced properly. As my editor used to say, "if you cannot find a person to stand behind what your reporting, then it could be made up by you.  Such articles we do not accept".  Maybe what the WSJ reports will be verified by someone, maybe not.   The story of Ms Bils is not fully written yet, so let it stay for while.  2001:8003:A070:7F00:A984:A186:2440:5A79 ( talk ) 07:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - According to WP:BLPBALANCE , The idea expressed in Eventualism —that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies.  Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.  And per WP:CRYSTAL , Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions .  Unverifiable speculation that more information might exist in the future does not support notability , according to WP:BLP and WP:NOT policy.  WP:BLPBALANCE also warns us to Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association .  According to deletion policy , several reasons support deletion (#8 fails relevant notability guidelines, #9 breach of WP:BLP policy, and #14 not suitable for the encyclopedia) at this time.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete