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 keep. I am closing this discussion early per our rule WP:SNOW because it is evident that it will not end in a consensus to delete the article. There are valid arguments being made for a merger to Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but it will not be possible to determine any consensus for or against this in this very long and unwieldy discussion that is mainly about whether the article should be deleted or not. Accordingly, this "keep" closure only determines that the article should not be deleted at this time. It does not preclude a merger discussion or any other discussion about how to organize our coverage of this topic area. Sandstein 15:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Files Investigation[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Twitter Files Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know where to start explaining why this should be deleted. It's a disaster. Maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start…
1. Twitter Files probably needs its own separate page from Laptop story… there will be more “reveals”.
2. Wikipedia will become irrelevant & obsolete if it takes a censorship stance. People are already aware that it’s a publicly maintained site with potentially inaccurate or biased info… censorship has no place here in the global commons. 72.66.79.219 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been biased for a long time and too many individuals that have no interest in facts are allowed to edit way too much. Unlike the days of Brittanica which had no less than 5-6 SCHOLARS that edited and reviewed the work, this allowed them to remain neutral as well as relevant. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@174.125.30.248, Yes. We are biased. We're biased and we're proud of it. I'm proud of it, not everyone is or agrees, see comment below by jpxg. But I think the point still stands. casualdejekyll 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont speak for all editors User:Casualdejekyll. Thanks Nweil (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casualdejekyll: Please strike this comment, or clarify that you are speaking only for yourself. I have made about seventy thousand edits, and have spent hundreds of hours trying to write good articles that eliminate bias (whether political or otherwise). I realize that you are deliberately linking to a troll essay in order to get a rise out of people; I have no objection to amusing yourself online, but I do object to you doing so by implying that Wikipedia editors are a bunch of hacks. jp×g 11:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, see their link. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar: I am well-acquainted with the essay and stand by what I said: it is disgraceful to the project to say that we are "proud of" being biased when we all know that the overwhelming majority of people see "biased" and think that it means "biased" rather than some convoluted, idiosyncratic fine-print definition of "bias" where it means "doesn't believe in Lysenkoism". jp×g 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think without a healthy level of snark this discussion would be even more of a disaster it already was. But I'll clarify. And It's true that I was speaking as the community when I really shouldn't have been. casualdejekyll 14:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell where to put this, but stop coming here because someone recruited you. It's become impossible to read this debate, it's turned into more of a flame war with people making personal attacks and comparing everyone to a politician they don't like than an actual AfD discussion. Read everything up at the top of the page. Like, actually read it. Not read the name of the policies and infer their meaning.
If you have a problem with Wikipedia's "bias", bring it up on Wikipedia. Do not recruit a massive group of editors to help you. Do not focus solely on changing this "bias". We are here to build an encyclopedia. We do not allow people who only intend to change a perceived "bias" into something that is just biased in an opposite way. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1 is the overriding point, and there shouldn't be a debate beyond that. If the later reveals have a name other than "The Twitter Files," then the page name should change accordingly, but for socio-historical significance alone, this needs to remain a separate and fully present page. The notion that this is (or will remain) solely a piece of sub-content to the Hunter Biden laptop story appears to be short-sighted.
The real crux of the situation is the willful suppression of what turned out to be factual material on the largest microblogging site currently running by a specific group of people in cooperation with elected officials representing one specific political party. Given that those involved with releasing the internal Twitter communiqués (Musk, Taibbi, Weiss, et. al.) are implying there was a pattern of these kinds of decisions within the company, then the later reveals may have nothing to do with the laptop story, at which point Hunter Biden connection would actually become the sub-topic of a larger page focused on of these Twitter releases.
Folding this into the Hunter Biden Laptop topic would be premature. Deleting the page outright would only give credence to those accusing the site of political bias and likely lose future contributions. Case in point: I only knew about the page and this debate because there's an external debate as well due to the notice on the page suggesting Wikipedia wants to delete it outright, and no mention of merging it with another page. ADWNSW (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are arguing that the article should remain as it is a subject that will be notable in the future. Please consider WP:CRYSTAL, orWP:NEXIST - an article is not notable unless it is notable now. In order to be notable, it would need to be considered notable for some other reason (e.g. shocking claims that had a widespread impact) by independent sources - which is very different from a single celebrity "implying there was a pattern".
If this event does become notable in the future, there is no reason why this page cannot simply be restored. Wikipedia is intended to be read as it is right now. Articles that merely may one day be notable clearly should not be something presented to readers right now.
On the contrary to "only confirming bias", deleting the page would be setting a bad precedent that justifies the creation of articles on topics that notable figures claim will be significant - this precedent would be made stronger by it being so public. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE 197.136.58.40 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Until another article is written, this one should remain in place.
The point of Wikipedia is not "first time is right." It's to present the information and have the community edit it per the Wikepedia process.
It is important this starting point remain in place for the time being. TcozWiki (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — TcozWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Its a big deal, of course it deserves a wiki page. 108.185.139.118 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does this make any sense? The article exists. If you find it lacking then fix it. Deletion is not correction. The topic is clearly notable and meets GNG. Your response is lazy and screams censorship. Xenomancer (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xenomancer, please do not accuse others of censorship unless there is actual evidence (or behavior) indicating censorship. Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your desire to maintain civility. I am not trying to senselessly sling epithets. What else do you want me to call it? The evidence and behavior are apparent in the plain text of the statement I responded to. The response to an article perceived as lacking was to suggest deletion rather than correction, and with no explanation beyond calling it a "disaster". This was followed with the suggestion that the page could be allowed but only after the extant article is deleted. How else am I to interpret this? It is blatant. The wholesale removal of the work of other authors for the sake of someone else's shallowly professed feelings would aptly be called censorship, in my opinion. Please tell me what other word(s) you would use to describe this. Xenomancer (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss content and policy, not editor motives. The essay you are looking for that summarizes your position is Deletion is not cleanup. Slywriter (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Xenomancer, you are correct, the argument could have been more specific. However, instead of "censorship", you could say WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. But for an average editor reviewing this page, they probably won't be focusing only on the nominator's comment. From what I can see below, there are arguments for deleting, keeping, or merging, and users are engaged in active conversation (no indication of censorship). — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will call out subjective editing that smacks of censorship on a whole list of articles on here. I do not need to name individuals because that is useless and will turn into a tit for tat. Bottom line is, Twitter is RELEVANT, Elon Musk is RELEVANT and the Hunter Laptop which has been acknowledged by the Washington Post, The New York Times, Washington Times, etc. is RELEVANT. What twitter did behind the scenes to bury the lead is also RELEVANT. That was censorship, albeit under the new dogwhistle of "disinformation". I command Xenomancer for calling it out. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
174.125.30.248, Xenomancer wasn't accusing Twitter of censorship, they were accusing an editor of censorship, specifically soibangla (from my observations). Editors shouldn't accuse others of censorship unless there's evidence, or if it's obvious. Read the discussion above. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The level of coverage of an issue by the main stream media can NEVER even be a factor in determining whether a subject should be deleted. Of what use or benefit could Wikipedia be should it be guided by a prejudiced set of institutions in deciding what's relevant? A forum must remain a forum, and all that takes is the continuing return to it by civil contributors and/or any substantial amount of readers. 73.106.38.213 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 68.98.61.205 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 68.98.61.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia was never a reliable source in the first place: that was never the point. More importantly, the author of the Twitter Files said that "there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." (CNN)
Oh, and also none of what you said is a policy-based reason for deletion. casualdejekyll 03:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This site should not get in start deleting relevant files. Elon Musk has shared this and despite some media ignoring it, this is another site that should be accessible no matter what, Cwojahn (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an IPV6 gets an SPA template? First, an IP cannot be an SPA, second, IPV6 addresses change so often, you can't have a damn clue what edits that person has actually made. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not sure how this is even a discussion. This is an event with large cultural and political ramifications. Why would we want to censor this? Briang7723 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Briang7723 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Strongly agree Pixk1 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Pixk1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep. No mater the ile you side with the Twitter Files Investigation prove the US government used social media to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and silence opposition and Journalists covering content harmful to Presidential candidates. If this is Deleted it goes against everything Wikipedia was created for a free open source collection of articles meant to preserve history against "Revisionist" history.
Matt Taibi Clearly stated this "System" of oppression on twitter was used by both Democrats and Republicans, which in and of it self should serve as a wake up call to the American people and all of Wikipedias users.
If Freedom Fails in the United States of America tyranny will win world wide. Don't let this fall into the "Revisionist" section of history. FreeThinkingPanda (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — FreeThinkingPanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very well said Cwojahn (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- the following is an answer by Wikisempra, creator of the page: What exactly “but not this one” means? If one decides to suggest a deletion, the most honourable path towards it should be to state why it should be deleted. Users, like me — and most on Wikipedia - try to add information. Calling someone’s work, that is carefully referenced and a major story in news, a “disaster” without addressing why is no way to conduct a dialogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisempra (talk • contribs) 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Arugia has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? The public doesn't have the right to comment? Oh, I get it, only the few get to decide what is or is not relevant. Go ahead, delete it and I promise you the Wikipedia will come to regret that decision. You want to remain relevant? Don't censor it. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipated future events do not mean that a given topic currently meets criteria for inclusion (WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NRV). Wikipedia is also not a soapbox, so the idea the article is "crucial to [Wikipedia's] survival" is not a reason for its inclusion either. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe user Arugia was making the point that if Wikipedia comes down on the side of pro censorship that would be harmful to Wikipedia's long term future survival. Mathmo Talk 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the "censorship". Can you provide any example of censorship? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while not meeting the definition of a "single purpose account", this account has been largely inactive until this AfD. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias. Jzoch2 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Jzoch2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep.  This is a developing story, with well-established journalists – Taibbi former Rolling Stone editor, and author of several books, and Bari Weis formerly of the New York Times.   While this story clearly needs more development, we are only at the beginning.  There is every reason to believe more is coming.  What we have seen so far shows significant malfeasance on the part of Twitter, the FBI, and political campaigns.  Reasoning that states “delete this article  because the story is a dud according to the media”, should be self-canceling.  That same media told us the story was Russian disinformation.   HarryRAlexander (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — HarryRAlexander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Ninety Mile Beach has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break[edit]

Keep (eventually Merge) - the article is well stated and definitely unbiased. Eventually this should probably be merged to the results of the outcome of the story (either expanding the discussion of Hunter Biden's Laptop or Twitter's oversight of their content) Rwezowicz (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rwezowicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The RSs are literally in the article? Nweil (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no real argument for deleting this information. It is confirmed the laptop, and its contents, are real and were generated by Hunter Biden. It is also a fact, Twitter was approached by the Biden campaign, and FBI personnel, to block distribution of the NY Post article and related topics. The purpose was to manipulate information relevant to a Presidential candidate, thus interfering with an election. That's a level of corruption, from those in government service (FBI personnel and members of Congress involved) we all need to know. To argue we should delete factual, confirmed, material is a disservice to all of us, and destroys all of Wikipedia's credibility. Moses963 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Moses963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
completely correct 96.38.143.71 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And to those who accuse Wikipedia of Left-wing bias, there are lots of short-term articles that get deleted. For example, Hillary Clinton's Delete your account was an article that I created back in 2016 because there were lots of news reports and memes at the time, such as Time Magazine, NY Times, and NPR. However, that had no long-term effect. Trump didn't delete his account at all. Instead, Twitter banned him in 2021, before bing reinstated by Musk in late 2022. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit in either of those suggested articles because it involves more than just the laptop story, and is being released by more journalists than Matt Taibbi. I see no instance of WP:CRYSTAL being violated in the article in question. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would you advocate handling Bari Weiss' use of the materials when that starts coming out? It makes little sense to merge a scoop handed to one of two reporters on the reporter's personal page. Your proposal just doesn't work. TMLutas (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People who are thinking about commenting in this discussion should also note that the essay you link to (WP:YWAB) is not Wikipedia policy Nweil (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a strawman there, as no one was claiming it was policy, that person just offered it as a useful read. There are many users who have been here for many, many years. They write essays like this, which are clearly marked as such, to offer their observations and guidance on various matters. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not Wikipedia policy either, and yet people still cite it in deletion discussions: the point of linking the essay was because I didn't find it reasonable to type out the entire contents of the essay into my !vote on an already bloated AfD. casualdejekyll 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This isn't about the laptop. It's about the first amendment violations and interference in elections. Fharryn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Fharryn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Except there are no first amendment violations as the first amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities like Twitter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is when the request for denial of free speech comes from a government entity which IS subject to the laws of The Constitution. So yeah. Twitter would never be in trouble for this, but the government entities requesting the removal could certainly be. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to fact-check sources or argue about the laws. We are here to judge the content of articles in accordance with our policies. Also, please read said policies before voting. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, I have no clue what it has to do with interference in elections either casualdejekyll 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that this is a good argument to improve this article instead of deleting/merging it. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's well established at this point (20 years of precedent) that if a section in an article gets too long and unwieldy, it can be split back out easily. WP:SPLIT. I would recommend only attempting such a thing ~3 months+ down the line when we truly know if everyone will have remembered this all or not. casualdejekyll 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no one mentions this 3 months down the line then it can be merged wherever is most appropriate. I see no good argument for deletion, and no sensible suggestion for where it should be merged to right now. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument assumes that "having an article" is the default state. We disagree on this, it seems. casualdejekyll 01:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to surveys, something like 12% (no source for now, but one could be found) of Biden voters would have changed their votes or stayed home had they known Joe Biden was allegedly connected to the wrongdoings. That would have been enough to change the winner in about 9 states. That could have changed the outcome of the election. Fharryn (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post says no. Your turn to provide a source, please. casualdejekyll 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ought to add that there were other accounts that match these characteristics–all also voting some variation of Keep–but I don't think it's the job of a non-admin to catalog every questionable AfD edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to keep or delete an article should be based on the merits of the argument and not on the prior Wikipedia editing history of the persons making the argument. If what you say is correct, all that probably suggests is a political bias on the part of regular Wikipedia editors, nothing more. 151.210.141.140 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're mostly wrong here. There are many single-purpose accounts or canvassed IPs or accounts, which should not be happening. If single-purpose accounts were allowed, someone could just create a dozen accounts and vote "keep" a dozen times, or perhaps use a dozen IPs. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final action here won't be based on a vote count, so the argument that "Anyone could create a dozen accounts and vote 'keep/delete'" falls flat. Those people would also have to make a viable argument for the keep/delete... or they will not be considered. If they -can- make a viable argument for keep/delete, then this should not be discounted based on "past participation patterns". 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. While we don't do headcounts in such discussions, the number of editors voting keep/delete can affect the result. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that the "merits of the argument" are hotly debated - and you don't seem to have put forward an argument yourself, either. casualdejekyll 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@151.210.141.140: Within controversial AfD discussions, it is standard to review whether the scales might be tipped one way or another by behaviors that are prohibited by policy and applied without regard to partisan persuasion. In this instance, a significant number of Keep votes come from editors whose behaviors are consistent with policy-violating actions. Speaking frankly and at the risk of appearing trite, I am among those disgruntled and disapproving of the suppression campaign against the laptop investigation. However, I think the contents of this article should be merged elsewhere based on policy. Similar merit-based stances are permissible, aggrieved and unsubstantiated claims of bias are not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Not everyone can be online 25/7 to make changes on a daily basis. 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 65.190.23.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@65.190.23.202: You're right! Some people can commit more time to this project than others, leading to an imbalance of experience between editors. As such, perspectives from established editors with 10 years of unblemished contributions will likely be held in higher esteem than first-time editors. Don't let this dissuade you from contributing, but recognize that in discussions such as these, tenure plays a role. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @99.179.136.46: Information on this will appear somewhere, but just not as its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not voting on whether or not this information is critical alone. Instead, we intend to determine if this needs its own article. If the answer to that is no, then it's also possible that it needs to be a section of some other article, but not have its own article. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2[edit]

  • @Ciroa: Unrelated to content and not a position taken on merit. Please review the blurb at the top of this page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Political editing cannot be allowed to become part of Wikipedia's DNA. That would make it just propaganda, not a source of truth. TZaddo (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — TZaddo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the fact that the theme is already being discussed in American News Media and also picked up in other countries (Like Brazil, India, France, Japan and other places), Also, there is already wik pages about the theme in other languages (eg. here is the Portuguese wiki page about the theme).

Therefore, i see no reason of why it should be deleted, since it is a noteworthy theme that many people will try seek it on internet and (specially) on Wikipedia.

Also

Meganinja202 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meganinja202, if you haven't heard of single-purpose accounts, then please do read about them. And reducing all "delete" votes to "IDONTLIKEIT" is complete misrepresentation. Finally, it doesn't matter if a dozen news outlets have reported on this. Do you think they'll still be publishing articles about this in the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years? That is more important. Why? Read WP:RECENTISM for a good explanation. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do know about purpose accounts but i don't think this is the case, i believe that most inactive people showed up to voice their concerns about this question in Good Faith.
Also, i do think people will continue talking about it in a way or another, independtly of political spectrium, especially since is already impacting the 2024 US elections debate and newer talks about Government intervention on Social Media are arising.
If people think it is a misunderstood or it just is a theory, they should voice those concerns on the talk page or try to edit to voice their bias better Meganinja202 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also i said MOST opinions, not ALL opinions, there is a difference Meganinja202 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Barber: Your comment is tangential to this discussion. If the content is merged to the article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, what exactly is being covered up? Please stick to the merits of an article when discussion its deletion or merger. More information on appropriate points of debate can be found here; consider reviewing them and amending your reasoning (you might come to the same conclusion you have already!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a "coverup" by trying to reduce one of the biggest stories of the month into merely a footnote of another article. When clearly a topic of this grand scope and importance requires an article of its own. Mathmo Talk 09:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS D4R1U5 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sofeshue: This is not really a commentary on the subject's notability according to WP:GNG nor its worthiness of being an independent article according to our other policies. Please consider amending your vote to reflect reasoning based on the article and subject's merits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing new"??? The Twitter Files were shocking even for those people who have been following these types of new stories for years, let alone people who haven't been hearing about it. (which is most people, most people are blissfully unaware of just how much censorship is going on) Mathmo Talk 10:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is incredibly noteworthy. I saw another editor say that this is a nothing burger. Well it should be obvious to everyone that the subject of the article is anything but nothing. I find it astonishing that editors can argue for deletion. Boscaswell talk 09:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a poll -- AfDs are closed according to consensus and consensus is assessed based on arguments that reference policies and guidelines. If a bunch of people show up to post nonsense, it will not have an effect on the outcome of the discussion, so I don't think any such action is needed. Also, I do not understand how you are advocating that it be deleted and merged at the same time (this is not possible). jp×g 11:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a bunch of newspaper articles about a bunch of tweets about a bunch of e-mails about a bunch of tweets, and all of it happened about three days ago, so it's not certain that the thread of discussion will see continued coverage (or that such coverage will establish it as independently notable from the people reporting on it and/or the original controversy). jp×g 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't much, but this is receiving continuing significant coverage, [3], [4]. — hako9 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Also at this point of time, anything Elon does makes the news. So that in itself is not a good enough argument. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the 2nd point of WP:NOTNEWS. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CRYSTAL. Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3[edit]

Comment Wikipedia isn't a group of people protected by a corporation. It's just people editing in their free time as a hobby. If there's even the slightest hint that these volunteers could have their safety compromised because of this wikipedia page, then of course it must absolutely be deleted. No question. Also white lies and similar forms of accountability/kindness-trade-offs prevent violence by not triggering bad actors. Wikipedia should do what it can when it can to prevent violence, especially when the only cost is some misinformation. Misinformation is a small price to pay when we consider that hurt feelings can very well lead to random butterfly-effect acts of violence. Thus, article deletion really is the only moral option. 13:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1f02:5000:80e5:5837:85bd:ae7a (talk)

References

  1. ^ "The Twitter Files, Explained". Gizmodo Australia. 2022-12-04. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
  2. ^ multiple purpose account
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.
More