Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 4

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fisher (cyclist)

Steve Fisher (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

due to not meeting notability threshold due to lack of significant coverage and as per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling. His only stage win was in a 2.2 category event, which does not meet the notability requirement of Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument or Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). KeepItGoingForward (talk)

• Keep The rider may not meet the cycling criteria however they do meet
  WP:GNG. There is sufficient reliable and verifiable articles to show Fisher meets GNG. Paulpat99 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, article has been greatly improved since nomination and clearly passes GNG.Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention that guideline sports? No, I referenced

WP:GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you please link those sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that do not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No articles referenced in the Steve Fischer wiki article are particularly about him except for results pages which is similar to what you will find for most cyclists at a higher level. All the references in the article are links to results or limited news articles about lower tier races and not about the rider. Unfortunately, his race wins do not meet the notability for a UCI category race. Struck the ivote of the nominator. You cannot ivote twice. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rider does not meet any of the significant coverage on Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling: Significant coverage is likely to exist for a male cyclist if he meets: Won a UCI World Tour; Won (a stage, or an overall individual classification) a Grand Tour or finished on the podium of a Monument; Won the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup; Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games) (also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship); Won a UCI category race (minimum classification 1.1 / 2.1, including Continental and National Championships). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the Fischer does not meet the basic criteria for sport's person of, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." KeepItGoingForward (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KeepItGoingForward as nominator you do not get to vote, you making this page counts as the vote. Please remove your entry. Paulpat99 (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes the
  WP:SNOW also applies. That's right, there is one delete !vote but it is really by the nominator. gidonb (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep notable cyclist. Bruxton (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2022 (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.

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.

Stade Montchaninois

Stade Montchaninois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be a unsourced article for a regional team who's website seems dead? Mr.weedle (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The French version of the article has some sourcing and a simple internet search has brought up sourcing of a similar name. Article needs improving not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:01, 4 December 2022 (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.

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 delete. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformist Socialists

Reformist Socialists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As the page introduction itself admits, this is a tiny party; it has sporadically participated in a few local elections (with poor results). The page about this party is written in three lines and is practically orphan (except for a not necessary mention on the

• Delete No significant coverage, at best it could be merged to The People of Freedom but even that is probably unnecessary since it would not any real value that I can see. Chagropango (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Long-time (still active) party based in Lazio worth of an article. There are virtually 1,000 Google hits for "socialisti riformisti" + "donato robilotta". Please also not that the party was represented in the Regional Council of Lazio. If there is no consensus on keeping the article, it could be merged into New Italian Socialist Party. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Checco, if any of the Google hits are of reliable and significant sources please note them here or, even better, use them to improve the page. I found only one possibly good source: [1] but I don't know how it fits into the article. Lamona (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to edit the article unless this discussion ends with "keep": too many articles have been recently deleted and I do not want to waste time. It might be difficult to find sources online on a minor party, which is still active (see here), but whose brightest days are behind. However, a political party which was represented in a Regional Council (see here) and has been active for 15+ years is de facto encyclopedic. Again, I hope the article will be kept and, after that, I will be more than willing to improve it. If that is not possible, I hope it can at least be merged with New Italian Socialist Party. --Checco (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first one you provide is a blog post that lists all of the parties for an election in one town. It includes this party, so that shows it was in that election. But not RS. The second has a two-line quote from the head of the party. I know that it is difficult to find whole articles about the party because it is a minor party in a crowded field. But without significant sources it is not "de facto encyclopedic." I'm neutral on whether it is merged but delete for keeping as a separate article. Lamona (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is the most authoritative and complete source on political parties in Italy and, by the way, the RS is mentioned for the 2022 municipal election in Rieti, Lazio (check number 16) of the list). I mentioned source 1 to show that the party is still active and it has been active for some 15 years, and source 2 to show that the party was represented in the Regional Council of Lazio, an assembly representing 5.5+ million people. --Checco (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there RS coverage or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google hits: many. Of which, secondary sources: not so many. Of which, reliable secondary sources: few. Of which, reliable secondary sources independent of the subject: fewer. Of which, reliable secondary sources independent of the subject with significant coverage of the topic (the ones requested for articles in Wikipedia): far fewer. Of all the Google hits, I think only this one can be considered a valid RS. I think however it is too few to allow the subject to have its own article. P1221 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:
  • If the article ends up being kept, I would suggest that some of the wording (e.g. "tiny", "finally") should be changed under
    MOS:OP-ED
    .
  • Secondly, I note that the fr: equivalent is slightly longer. Can any information be imported from there? It Is Me Here (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@It Is Me Here In reality, the French page doesn't add much else, except for a decidedly wrong statement: this party never participated in the Umbrian regional election in 2010, the list that participated was linked to the Italian Socialist Party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for taking a look. I'm fine for it to be deleted then, per commenters above. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2022 (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.

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.

]

Twitter Files Investigation

If you came here because you saw a tweet about this discussion ([2][3]), 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 csp |username}}.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | 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]

@

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: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

]

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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lol, I was doing the twinkle thing and creating an afd myself when it popped up with the edit conflict. Shoulda copied my nom rationale and made this easy. Basically, and setting aside the atrocious grammar and writing style, this is not a noteworthy topic in and of itself as there is no "investigation". A series of tweets by a journalist based on info he was given by the CEO is not an "investigation". As reliable sources have covered this bit of a Nothing-Burger (referring to the results), it is certainly usable to cite content in an appropriate article, i.e. it is already mentioned at Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. But it is not a topic by itself. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This very much is noteworthy. 66.128.188.1 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The establishment has convinced half the country to voluntarily give up give up their 1st amendment rights in the name tolerance and inclusion and so on. Misinformation used to be known as lying but it would sound stupid if they called it what it is. To say that this isn't a "noteworthy topic" is disingenuous at best. Just more of trying to silence those that don't follow the narrative. 2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  again, SPA templates of IP addresses, especially IPV6 addresses are not appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're argument breaks down in multiple ways. The idea that you implicitly have about notability should be made explicitly, please do so.

  In fact the main issues that the Taibbi's report is trying to deliver is the lack of credibility by the corporate journalism. Which they completely failed to do and what is the independent journalism supposed and trusted to do. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The level of discourse on Wikipedia is getting insane, surely. The emails that were exposed are real and part of an investigation talked about at every major news outlet. To deem work as “just tweets” displays arrogance and, clearly, a political side. It is disgraceful to add a relevant topic and see it demonised and treated, like most topics in the U.S., a fight of right-left.
  XfD. [reply
  ]
• Delete per Zaathras Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep There is no reason why it should be deleted. It seems some vested interests wants to hide an article because it exposes some people doing shady work. 182.69.182.138 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an evolving story and a page will permit expanded documentation.Kmccook (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a separate standalone story. Agree it is evolving, hourly. Hunter Biden's laptop forms only a part. People are getting fired from Twitter as a result of controversies... other Media such a New York Post are now attacking Musk for limiting release of the files to Taibbi & Weiss. 49.190.74.223 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 49.190.74.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete
  WP:10YT. This "event" was a dud rather than a smoking gun. Many news networks avoided covering this as there is no "there" there. (For instance, the New York Times as of now has published nothing on this.) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  But that is the main point, the lack of credibility by these corporate media. Why you want to delete something where the report is telling you that these media just don't want to observe and scream the truth. The truth that was happening explained on the Taibbi's report. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Taibbi's "report" showed a content moderation team debating how to moderate content, and nothing more. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  New York Times is deeply engraved in this matter - they don't publish anything on purpose. Thus giving this as argument per deletion is an actual censorship in the end. 83.6.213.108 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @83.6.213.108: I think you are confused about what is being discussed; most every editor agrees this material ought to be somewhere on the project but many think it should be within another article rather than be its own. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft - for now. We don't know which way H. Biden's story will go, once Republicans take over the House, in January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  But we do know that this Twitter thread was a bust. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In this day & age of American politics? It's rare that anything is ever certain. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No you don't - it has not ended and will be continued. 83.6.213.108 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  this is not mainly about H.Biden story. It's about the censorship that has happened to multiple people at the request of political parties. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's look at those policies / pages you cited:

  WP:10YT state that the page should make sense if a viewer 10 years from now looks at it, it's an argument to modify the page if necessary, not to delete it. None of the pages you cited are a valid policy-based reason to delete the page. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  See this part:

  News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

  This article is part of a larger and more significant controversy. The Twitter Files Investigation or whatever is not a stand-alone event, but instead an event that is part of a different, specific investigation. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's a crosswiki pushing of the situation showing as a "historical event" and not as a derivative work of a conspirative report, mainly conduced with two suspicious accounts. The entry was reverted in Spanish Wikipedia. Taichi (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Who care what they do, that's them and this is here. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and/or Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. What an effing nothingburger and embarassment for Taibbi to think Twitter taking down revenge porn was a political scandal. But it doesn't need a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocking access to news stories and restricting accounts that linked to them is censorship in its purest form. It was not "taking down revenge porn" as you suggest. It was censoring a news story at the behest of politicians. The Hunter Biden laptop is the example, but politicians pressuring a private company to censor a private news organization and private citizens is the story. 2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a three-sentence description of a self-published internet page. Not Notable. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Biden laptop article, it's a nothing event about another nothing event. This isn't even GNG yet, if it will ever be. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- under the scope of the laptop article. Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this self-published blogpost (with a grandiose title) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. If relevant, discourse relating to the blogpost could be covered under the laptop page. I don't think a merge is necessary. Neutrality^talk 01:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  that's the point that what you consider reliable, as report is providing evidence, is not as reliable as it's believed to be. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  this report is about censorship, the corporate media is not covering because that would validate 100% the Taibbi's report. Deleting this page would certainly also valid that there is censorship from multiple ways, now in this case also Wikipedia.

  Tell me, or yourself, why would you cover some story that says that you are the bad one??? Think about it during your free-time/chil-time.

  And the evidence is out there on Taibbi's report. People(political parties) had unlimited access to control who can speak and who can't speak. And, one instance of this power is, NYP article. But the report has more than once instance. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is about Twitter and their actions. The article is based upon internally sourced Twitter documents viewed by the reporter. I think it is a mistake to conflate Twitter's active censorship of a news outlet to an addict's abandoned his laptop. Trying to merge this into the Hunter Biden Laptop story is mixing distinct topics in my opinion.

  - I would add to this story by including the the released correspondence from Rep. Ro Khanna which shows there was controversy in blocking the NY Post articles:

  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjA2C14XEAQv2-G?format=png&name=4096x4096 & https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjA2s0gXEAE7vAr?format=png&name=4096x4096

  - I would add Yoel Roth's was intent to block the NY Post Article as "hacked material" first and investigate later. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjA0R6cWIAgdwlk?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 and it appears that his primary goal was to prevent a repeat of the 2016 election, not really blocking "hacked material". Scpo117 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What are reliable sources? If you mean those that did not onward report the original NYPost article about the Hunter Biden Laptop as it was deemed inconvenient to Biden's election prospects, then not reliable sources perhaps. The Twitter files partially shows how the true NYPost story was suppressed. 2A00:23C8:6A00:FA01:314F:C799:D2A6:43F2 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm also of the opinion that this could very well fit in Hunter Biden laptop controversy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect this is literally what a simple add on to the
  WP:RECENT and yeah Hunter Biden laptop controversy also fit. Put a redirect on it problem solved. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  A merge into a general topic of censorship advanced by both political parties might be in order as this is a very good example of censorship being advanced by a political party 2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The original source (the twitter thread), claims there's no evidence that the government was involved (despite its evident sensationalism). Opinions on censorship by Twitter would belong on the Twitter article itself, but bearing

  WP:V in mind the focus would need to be on these claims being made without evidence. I.e. This is not a good example of censorship by a party, it is instead an example of a story where media outlets claimed Twitter was enacting censorship for the government with no basis. Aside from the government not having involvement in the brief restrictions on the H.B. Laptop story, it is notable that there is no evidence of censorship presented at all, only requests from the government to take a look at certain tweets. Also notable is these requests came before Biden was incumbent. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. This is not notable enough for its own article and should be in the main Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. "The prevailing consensus has been that the files were underwhelming, not bringing to light anything that was not known about Twitter's handling of the story beforehand." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? You were aware of Baker's involvement and the tight connection between Twitter and the Biden Administration to limit the story? Sorry, but you are dead wrong there. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Could not disagree more with the Delete or Merge position. The Hunter Biden Laptop story is a minor sub-set to this story. Elon Musk has released internal documentation regarding the workings of Twitter prior to his takeover. People are getting fired. Media outlets attacking Musk, Taibbi and Weiss... Musk is exposing his company to legal jeopardy. This talk section in itself should have a section in the story because , rightly or wrongly, it suggests that Wikipedia has been "infiltrated" in order to support a narrative. This story is more important than the Hunter Biden Paltop Story. If anything, the Laptop Strory should be merged into this story. 49.190.74.223 (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see

  WP:N enough for a section) - regardless of whether your belief is true and this talk page suggests infiltration by nameless nefarious actors, Wikipedia is a collection of accepted knowledge and not a collection of what editors think is fact. As for this being a minor subset of this story, you are correct, and there is already an article covering this Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There was still lots of news coverage and debate, thus it's notable, whether or not it was considered underwhelming by many (reliable sources claiming this can be cited in the article). That's not a valid reason to delete the article. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was generally ignored by the media (with good reason) and thus failed to establish notability. There-being (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect, CNN covered it (one of the first search hits) https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/12/03/smr-musk-taibbi-twitter-files.cnn as well as many other reliable sources discussed and debated it (including on national TV). Notability is clearly established, just because you don't like it (

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not a reason to delete a page. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  STAY/MERGE - There are basicly whole emails of USA Gov/DMC censoring oponents and claiming that 1st amendment can be ignored when it fits them! Its basicly 2nd biggest thing after Watergate. Just the proof enough are that leftits propaganda outlets like CNN/ MSNBC etc are not covering on it is proof enough. Anyone who read the mails with the full names of the ppl there (showing who is reponscible for what) and says its nothing noteworthy is either a leftist censor shill or just lying and never read it. 89.151.45.125 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would suggest a merge, but there's not really anything here. Even as a stub it suffers from being unsourced in some places and poorly sourced in others, suggesting a lack of notability. It also doesn't have a clearly defined topic. Is this about an investigation, or is this about a Substack article? While the title suggests the former and the lede suggests the latter, the content of the article is actually about neither. There is no investigation, and the article lacks any notable information about what the self-published article had to offer. The original revision was much larger than the current one because once you trim out the poorly written editorialized sensationalism there's not really anything left.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. All that is necessary to be a "valid vote" (hint: it doesn't actually go by voting) is the single word "Keep". That you do not like the reasons given does not alter that fact. 72.42.157.24 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's actually not how it works. The closer will evaluate the arguments, particularly those that cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to determine the consensus, not the numbers on each "side". Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the part where I said "(hint: it doesn't actually go by voting)" or were you in too much of a hurry to use the "aaaaactually" schitck to do that? 72.42.157.24 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The closer will evaluate the arguments, particularly those that cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to determine the consensus

  Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As said at the top, one should assume (and speak in) good faith in these discussions. Assuming you were not talking about the topic, but instead attacking Wikipedia's resolution system, would not be assuming good faith. Please make comments only if you're interested in contributing to the discussion rather than demeaning contributors.58.178.108.163 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Reasoning revolves around
  WP:NOPAGE. It's notable, but having it in the laptop controversy article would provide more context and be better covered there. Cable10291 (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with to the article about the laptop controversy. Deletion isn't merited as their is some coverage but this should not be its own page either. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge most of the content (or lack thereof) should fit into the Laptop article, and it should also get a section in the History of Twitter or Musk acquisition articles. Musk aligning with a Trump conspiracy theory and giving privileged access to increasingly right-wing journalists is honestly more notable than the story itself. --jonas (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Content reliant on the laptop controversy. I can imagine a world where this general concept becomes its own article, but we would need a lot more than what we already have. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This publication itself - the act of publication per se and its manner - and its content are both highly relevant to on-going events concerning high-level US politics. The related events will likely play an important role in announced and upcoming impeachment proceedings against the current POTUS and VPOTUS. They may also play an important role in the evolution of key legislation relevant to the operation and legal protection of Internet platforms, with the potential to directly impact Wikipedia itself. It is therefore essential - and possibly crucial to its survival - that Wikipedia proves on this occasion its unimpeachable commitment to transparency and impartiality and its ability to police without fail attempts to censor and temper with its content. Not only this article must NOT be deleted, it must be afforded the most extensive level of protection. Arugia (talk) 17:08, 6 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 (

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]

• Keep: The fact that some users who voted “Delete” mentioned that a valid reason was that ’The New York Times did not publish “very detailed” articles regarding the Twitter Files is truly amazing. I do not mean to offend anyone, but so many users are exuding lack of intelligence, it is unreal to see some saying “let’s see how it plays out”. What do you mean? This is a serious issue. Is ‘The New York Times the reference of journalism? All are valid. The purpose of the files was to expose how corrupt the journalistic world is becoming, that includes US, Wikipedia. If you are concerned about the “optics” think that there are more emails coming. For anyone on the outside deleting this very important article just shows that the right-wing, which I am no fan of, is right in regards to suppressing content. Rivelinp (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rivelinp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  well said 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. The Twitter files are ongoing with relevant factual information. Gensao (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the topic is worthy of keeping, although it would need a serious expansion in the coming weeks. If it *has* to be deleted, I would begrudgingly support a merge into a preexisting article dealing with Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter. EytanMelech (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMO this is worth keeping as it has been indicated that there will be more releases. If at that stage it is still not worth not keeping, it may be merged into either Elon Musk's take over of Twitter or the Hunter Biden's laptop story. Chirag (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event to pretend otherwise is dishonest. Varying partisan opinions can be made about the event, but users deserve the newsorthy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete / Merge. The material here can be covered adequately in the Hunter Biden laptop article and/or the article on Matt Taibbi. There's no reason for a tweet thread to have its own stand-alone article. Binarybits (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is still developing, there is apparently more (potentially not related to the laptop story) that will be released in the future. It's a separate event from the laptop controversy, happening years later. Whatever your opinion on the matter, it is still a notable event (hundreds of thousands of likes, not to mention discussion/views) in the story of the Twitter takeover and subsequent reaction to the previous administration. Anyone can add cited information about how other groups of people didn't think it was notable.
• Keep This is an ongoing story and is already notable. There's no reason it shouldn't have it's own page. Slugiscool99 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Slugiscool99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Noteworthy and now independent of Taibbi and has outgrown the original "Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy" and has grown to the Trump and Biden administration colluding with a private entity to restrict civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeeeeeep (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 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 it's a notable article, if you not have any proper explanation stay away from deletion nomination. 111.119.178.138 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please remember to remain civil to other editors. Equine-man (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:BNS as well. Equine-man (talk) 19:17, 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 there’s enough coverage of this to pass
  WP:GNG. The content is still being covered by plenty of reliable sources. 2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85 (talk) 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]

• Keep Noteworthy article, can surely be expanded.--Sakiv (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a story that is well sourced and important. It deals with fundamental first amendment rights. Government actors worked with a private company to censor speech, which is illegal if done directly. And doing this just before an election, to the benefit of one candidate over the other, elevates the importance of this story. Mainstream media, of course, is trying to ignore this story as it reflects poorly on them. The NYT, WAPO, etc. took TWO years to bother to determine that the laptop was legitimate. They took the statements of 40 ex-intel officers that it "had the hallmarks of a Russian information operation" and discredited the story. 47.188.38.194 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 47.188.38.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep certainly relevant. Please expand. Ninety Mile Beach (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[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]

• Merge with the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Deletion isn't merited as the information within this article is duly encyclopedic. On the other hand, if editors expand it in line with Wikipedia's policies it can be kept. As it stands it is too short to justify being kept as a self-contained article.MurrayScience (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

• Keep As of now, a Google search for "Twitter Files" reveals articles from National Review, NBC News, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN, Axios, Washington Post, WIRED, Fox News, Reuters, Forbes, and yes, the New York Times, and on and on. Any earlier argument that this event did not receive media coverage is moot (fortunate that we did not yet rush to deletion on that basis). Mmurrian (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Mmurrian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  well written and researched 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Heavily covered in mainstream media: NYT, USA Today, CNN. The "delete" arguments are based on subjective evaluations of noteworthyness and are entirely unconvincing in the face of significant coverage in reliable sources. Should probably be renamed to Twitter Files. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above votes and per
  WP:ATA arguments seeping in from Twitter posts, and don't even engage with the notability aspect of it - yes, it's 100% notable enough to be included in a page, but not as a stand-alone article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Am glad you agree this is a 100% notable topic, but what evidence if any supports your argument that this doesn't support a standalone article??

  As clearly all evidence points in the opposite direction.

  For instance there is waaaay past a thousand words in this article already! (and it is only growing)

  That is not something which should be a small footnote as part of a larger article. Mathmo ^Talk 10:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Per Ser! et al. There is no significant coverage across MSM to deserve a standalone page and get past the barrier set by NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No significant coverage? The NYT, Washington Post, CNN and many others have articles on this subject. If that doesnt qualify, what would? Bonewah (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe we should just merge all of wikipedia into one single web page? As nothing on it seems to meet the very high barrier of entry they've invented. Mathmo ^Talk 10:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Merge. As others have said this isn't particularly noteworthy no matter how much some people insist it is. It's a footnote at most, stretched into an entire article. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Archimedes157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Well over a thousand words already is merely "a footnote"?? Please explain the logic of your statement. As the facts are in complete contradiction to it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Internet. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for the closing admin. Single-purpose accounts tagged, plus 2 sleepers with long inactivity til this Afd. The IPs are to numerous to tag as well, but their entries are in the same boat of meritless keep votes. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Could they at least be struck? Would make it easier for curious editors like me to see what the current general consensus is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe so. Usually I've just seen SPAs denoted with the tag so the closing admin knows. I've also tagged another dormant one. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. Alright then. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IAR perspective at this juncture. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oh no I"m aware. It's just that the mass amount of low-quality arguments makes it hard for me to see the legit comments. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The general consensus is a solid delete at this point. It would be easier without the cruft, but then we'd have to deal with the misbegotten "my 1st amendment rights!" spam along with the vote spam. Hopefully the Afd will be semi-protected soon. ValarianB (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Popular culture. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy. There is no reason why this straw fire cannot be given what limited attention it deserves within the confines of the article on the larger issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Misuse of Twitter moderation policies in order to affect elections is a different issue than whether or not Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's conduit for illegal payments. You can have any outcome on the Hunter Biden issues and not affect the notability or importance of whether Twitter has been tilting the public square in favor of certain political factions. TMLutas (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TMLutas (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

  I dislike all these " canvassed " tags with zero evidence to support it. They're just slurs being thrown at those they disagree with.

  And I agree, the Biden latop and the corruption in the Biden family is a very different topic to Twitter Censorship/Manipulations. (although sure, I'd agree, they're certainly overlapping topics) Mathmo ^Talk 10:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty easily passes
  wp:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." NYT, BBC and more are all independent of the source and have all covered the topic. User:King of Hearts is right, significant coverage overrides the subjective opinion that this is a 'nothingburger'. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per King of Hearts, easily notable. A merge might be reasonable, but would be best to wait until things have calmed down and the full scope is better understood. Legoktm (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the correct answer. The fact that people seek to delete it so soon after initial creation, rather than allow the article to naturally evolve, shows that it is less a concern of a less notable topic and more or less a personal opinion. I think a merge *could* be useful, but only time will tell if this becomes big enough to keep on its own. EytanMelech (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the irony. We all know this will ultimately be kept in some form (maybe with an intermediate deletion, then undeletion, then rename). The existence of multiple reliable sources saying there's nothing of significance (like this) is actual proof there is something signficant to cover. Those most wanting to keep the article, especially those coming off Twitter, in support of Musk, will ultimately hate and despise the article this becomes. Those wishing to delete it now, will ultimately accept its inclusion, but will work to make a lengthy article explaining how there is nothing to see here. Nobody will get what they want. Everybody on all sides of Wikipedia and Twitter will work together, to showcase the worst of Wikipedia and Twitter. All efforts to remove perceived garbage, will result in amplification of the same. --Rob (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The existence of multiple reliable sources saying there's nothing of significance (like this) is actual proof there is something signficant to cover. ... Everybody on all sides of Wikipedia and Twitter will work together, to showcase the worst of Wikipedia and Twitter.

  Indeed. At least the Washington Post eventually came out and confirmed that the originally-suppressed Laptop Story was in fact true -- long after the fact. 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG and V, articles survive daily with far less sourcing and far less notable participants than 2 US Presidential campaigns, the US government, the world's richest man and one of the world's top social media platforms Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to
  WP:NOTNEWS). What's more, some of the above arguments are baffling. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The "files" are about data allegedly from the laptop hack, no reason this shouldn't just be a section in the larger article about this. Wish I had some popcorn rn. DPS2004 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a misstatement of what the files are, which are corporate communications of Twitter employees and arguments about how Twitter moderation policies were being used/misused. TMLutas (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, it makes as much sense (next to none!) to merge this article with the Biden Laptop article as it does with a bunch of other articles (Big Tech / Internet Censorship / Deplatforming / Twitter suspensions / etc etc etc!!)

  But no, Twitter Files is it's own article! Mathmo ^Talk 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that this discussion should be semi-protected or protected, seeing as the Muskrat himself has posted about this discussion on Twitter and caused a brigade of his fans. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Absurd. Let the conversation play out. It's a seven-day process. Dan.Toler (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's absurd to say a page should be protected when it's under a brigade from people trying to push an agenda. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:NEUTRAL rules, insulting celebrities, (Elon Musk) in this case goes against these rules. If you’re on about agendas, maybe you shouldn’t be trying to push your own feelings about high profile people on a website that should be promoting neutrality, but high profile editors like you insulting these people has you yourself trying to push an agenda. It’s extremely hypocritical. Realise your double standards, this has been persistent among loads of high profile editors on this website. 92.10.171.52 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 92.10.171.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply

  ]

  Yes indeed, perhaps anybody who uses an insulting and biased phrase such as "Muskrat" is only here because they themselves have been "canvassed".... Mathmo ^Talk 10:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If a lot of people care about it, that makes it all the more important to allow the conversation time. 172.78.61.241 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 172.78.61.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Merge I don't see how this meets notability standards in its own right. But it's notable enough to the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal that it deserves a section there. It could always be spun out as its own if Taibbi or Weiss release more information and it becomes more notable. Dan.Toler (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain how seven sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability? Slywriter (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently NYT, Washington Post, CNN and many others no longer count towards notability in this brave new world of wikipedia in late 2022. Mathmo ^Talk 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:10YEARS. "Reliable sources" is not the only policy we use when deciding if an article should be deleted. Again, your arguments are not sufficiently convincing. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  For you to be able to cite these policies as useful and relevant, you either need to provide some proof of your claims or have a crystal ball. (if you do have one... please give me some useful stock tips! Thanks) Mathmo ^Talk 11:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the events in question have significant political and cultural ramifications. It's impossible to tell at this point if the impact will increase or decrease over time, but deleting now when it's most relevant would be a huge disservice to anyone looking for information on the subject. Merging is not ideal, as the Biden laptop story is only an example of the issues brought to light by the Twitter Files. The subject of the Twitter Files is the existence of, and ethical implications of, cooperation between government and social media. Biden's laptop is the key example, but it is not the exclusive idea to the point that the Twitter Files are a subsection of that controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.61.241 (talk) — 172.78.61.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy - this is pretty much an attempt to *create* a story rather than document it. No reason for stand alone article. Also, y’all know this is getting brigaded like crazy (for keeping) by alt right and far right accounts on twitter and other social media, right? Probably should just strike any !votes by newish or sleeper accounts. Volunteer Marek 20:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please try to explain why it deserves a merge specifically with the Biden Laptop Scandal and not any of many many other wikipedia topics such as Big Tech / Internet Censorship / Deplatforming / Twitter suspensions / etc etc etc??

  Because the Twitter Files is not specifically only about a laptop, and also touches upon all those many other topics as well.

  Also please explain how on earth well over a thousand plus words somehow are meant to just be a small footnote in an article rather than its own standalone article??? Mathmo ^Talk 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They didn't say this article should be turned into a "footnote". There's a major difference between footnotes and sections. And the "Twitter Files" are for the most part about Hunter Biden's laptop. Even if there's a minor mention of something else (for which you'll need a reference), that doesn't prove that this needs a stand-alone article. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge/delete - can easily be expanded in
  WP:SPA accounts or troll IPs leaning towards right-wing views and language. Might be wise to RFP this AfD since as stated above it’s been posted on Twitter itself and is almost certainly a target by right-wingers trying to influence the outcome with dubious reasoning. This was nothing more then a dud. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Twitter publicly airing its dirty laundry on how it handles censorship requests is a completely separate issue from whether Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's bag man for corrupt payments. The salaciousness of Hunter Biden's laptop contents draws clicks. The misuse of moderation policies according to current Twitter ownership is only tangentially related. TMLutas (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Let's review
  WP:SPA accounts or troll IPs leaning towards left-wing views and language Calebb (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Do you mean the (speedy) keep ones? None of the delete votes have been from IPs, and all six of the six SPAs (and all of the IPs) have voted keep. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should not be deleted because it really happened. Representatives of our government conspired with a private company to stifle the free speech of the very citizens they were elected by. It was motivated by a desire to control the narrative just days before a presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:2f60:fc22:55db:35a7:d8b (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1700:8480:2f60:fc22:55db:35a7:d8b (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - It's notable and worthy of it's own article. Calling someone a SPA is not much different than biting newcomers. These are people becoming interested in the processes of wiki, it should be encouraged. Nweil (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is, quite literally, an issue of how many sources exist. If you claim it's notable, prove it by showing sources in reputable media. DS (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEPThe Twitter files is evidence that Twitter colluded with government in a bias manner. Wikipedia will become even more irrelevant as a reliable source of information if it deletes this. 2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• This is a canvassed nightmare but I will give my 2 cents: Merge to
  ping me when replying) 05:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't think Wikipedia:Recentism is relevant here at all. And clearly the person who nominated this article for deletion was very trigger happy in that they nominated it for deletion only a half hour after it was created and rushed in too fast. I'd suggest that those people who somehow strangely think this topic suffers from Wikipedia:Recentism ought to wait for a few weeks, or even better a few months, to see if their crystal ball predictions turn out to be true (how though, I can't see any path forward to that for them). If they're right, then sure, at that point in time then I too would support a merger. But at the present time, there is as yet no basis on which to support a merger. Mathmo ^Talk 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Muboshgu. This fails
  WP:NOTNEWS and other tests, and there already is an article at Hunter Biden laptop controversy for covering this topic. This is just a small detail in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy and not really deserving of its own article. A Substack post that doesn’t get major media coverage except for a few outlets devoting a tiny amount of space to trying to debunk it is not notable. Also this AfD discussion is being canvassed on Twitter by people who want to keep this article. The facts of the matter are, the content from that laptop violated Twitter rules against revenge porn and Twitter staff discussed what to do before arriving at what ended up being a fairly straightforward conclusion based on their rules and laws against revenge porn (i.e. posting stolen pictures or videos of someone else nude without permission). A social media company following its own rules and the law is not worthy of an encyclopedia article every time it happens or else we would have endless separate articles about things such as Kanye West’s most recent Twitter suspension that could just be merged into the articles about the people in question, if there is even any encyclopedia-quality content worth merging in the first place, which there is not here. —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  A "small detail" ? This article lists an instance of a corporation explicitly engaging in censorship which some think is unjustified. Additionally I strongly disagree with you when you say that The Twitter Files have not got extensive media coverage, they have got more than enough media coverage . Thus this article must be included Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RECENTISM, which explains a common issue on Wikipedia, where editors will justify the existence of an article just because there are "lots of sources". Will this actually be reported on next year? The year after? In ten years? How significant is this? Questions like these could help. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "...the content from that laptop violated Twitter rules against revenge porn..."

  Not true at all. And anybody with even a very superficial knowledge of the Biden Laptop Scandal would know that statement was flat out false. As it was not scandalous the pictures were being censored, but that even links to the published news stories on this were being censored and accounts sharing it were being banned!!! Heck, people couldn't even share the news story links in their DMs!! (that's a level of censorship on twitter that had never been seen before for this type of material) Mathmo ^Talk 10:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Censorship, political bias, underhand maneuvers of social platforms have always been there for a long time and are widely known. The Twitter files, even if they are true, merely reinforce such facts and CONTAIN NOTHING NEW. Might as well yet be another coordinated attack on democracy and smear campaign against the leftists by Musk. Sofeshue (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  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]

• Keep* The Twitter Files have allegedly revealed how the platform could be influenced by outside parties to censor posts. Supplementally the topic has been covered by multiple news organisations. While the total impact of the revelations can be debated, what is incontrovertible is that this page must stay in interests of fairness and transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria Bucephalous (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete (EC). Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, we don't need to document every event that gets coverage (or even lots of coverage), much less give everything its own standalone article. Per PAGEDECIDE, we can deny independent articles on topics even if they meet GNG and don't violate NOT; and in this case, the subject doesn't even clearly pass NOT as we have no indication it is of enduring importance. JoelleJay (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• For me, the decisive factor in favor of deletion is
  the 10 year test as others have mentioned. The mere presence of immediate reporting doesn’t mean that readers will be able to make sense of the topic very soon after our low attention span news cycle moves on. The broader discussion on the numerous political conspiracies of our day surely has a place in this encyclopedia, but in that article this ripple will be but a single sentence, if that much. -- Y not? 06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This topic is clearly relevant today, which is when you and I are discussing this. But you claim to have a crystal ball to claim that somehow in ten years time this will all be seen as so very irrelevant it deserves to be deleted? Sorry, but no WP:CRYSTALBALL Mathmo ^Talk 10:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s exactly the point — if we’re having this conversation in a month, this is just a forgotten specific projectile in the overall battle that is our lamentable conspiratorial political discourse. This is an encyclopedia, not

  The New York Post, we have a different scope here. Of course that’s just my judgment about an appropriate level of granularity for this encyclopedia, but this is fine because I’m its editor. Look, if these “Twitter files” get deleted today, but somehow end up as significant to history as the Pentagon Papers or the Steele dossier, we can definitely have an article about them then, okay? With the benefit of patience and hindsight. Am I allowed to say that, or 🪩? -- Y not? 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep easily meets
  WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge In its current state, the article is does not contain enough info and isn't detailed enough to justify its existence. If there is more info "leaked" over the weekend, especially relating to topics that are not Hunter Biden, this could change. But for now, it should be merged into Hunter Biden laptop controversy. A lot of the keep votes accusing Wikipedia of censorship do not realize that the limited info in this article will remain in one form or another, just not in a standalone article. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are already aspects of the Twitter Files story that are not just about Hunter Biden. We've long gone past the point at which this is not just a very notable topic, but a standalone topic as well. Mathmo ^Talk 10:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  99% of it is about Hunter Biden. If they release something about COVID for example, then it would warrant its own article. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:36, 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]

• KEEP - the article has barely been up and already people (or bots) are calling for it to be deleted. I'm not really surprised this is happening - I'm sure people at Wikipedia are being "encouraged" to remove it. Wombat-911 (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Wombat-911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Ironic. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  ping me when replying) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete or merge. Insufficient coverage to justify an article on it as a separate topic, especially under this name. Most of the sourcing doesn't treat the name as reliable or significant (using it only in quotes), and largely treats it as a subtopic of the
  WP:POVFORK of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy due to using a fundimentially POV title, framing, and focus. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 09:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because many notable sources are speaking and writing about it, be it in criticism; and they're almost all using the same name. A topic is made notable by its coverage by notable sources, not its plebiscite by notable sources.
  Alfy32 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]
• Comment: A nomination made just thirty minutes after an article was created... an article as woefully incomplete as this one is... hard to pick a side here. One thing's for sure though: your comments in this discussion are going to be in the damn newspaper! Please discuss accordingly. jp×g 10:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: It is too notable to be deleted. If this event is not notable enough for Wikipedia, I believe there are at least a million article on Wikipedia that is less notable. To (kind of) prove this claim, just click "Random article" on Wikipedia; my claim is that for almost anyone, this article is more notable than 1 article for each 6 random articles; so, there are at least a million articles less notable than this because there are more than 6 million article on English Wikipedia. Mstf221 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • assume good faith, then you can "understand how anyone without a political motivation tries this article to be deleted"? Other editors are discussing in good faith, you know. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep or Merge There seem to be plenty of third party, notable, sources. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to discourage journalism by wikipedia editors, and keep out celebrity gossip and routine fluff articles, not exclude political scandals and current events. Helixdq (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: Well-sourced and notable. Can and should be separate from laptop article, just as Tower Commission is separate from Iran–Contra affair. Michaelmalak (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Clearly passes
  WP:GNG at this point. If it truly were a "nothing burger" why are so many people arriving here and commenting on the talk page? There appears to be some political activism going on in the attempts to delete this page. The Twitter Files describe Big Tech collusion with political figures, and the censoring of a mainstream news source. The public will be watching to see if Wikipedia can provide neutrality here, or if it too is politically compromised. Beachy (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beachy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply
  ]

  So many people are arriving here because Elon unleashed his army on this. See

  WP:CAN. D4R1U5 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Please don't assume bad faith. I have not been "canvassed" by anyone. I've been an active user and contributor to Wikipedia since 2006 and I came to this article because I searched Wikipedia for information on a notable event. Beachy (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete & Merge for the aforementioned reasons, and merge into the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Also: This poll is being manipulated by Musk on Twitter. No sure how we can reach any honest consensus under such an invasion. IMHO Musk personally sending his fanboys after this process makes it pretty much irrelevant, but I have no idea how to resolve it in the other way. Maybe limit who can actually participate? SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:40, 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

]

• Keep Now, I admire brevity as much as Hunter admires women, but I don't see how an article of this size can be merged without trimming important information. Delete !votes make no sense when the there is so much significant coverage in all mainstream reliable sources, much of it critical of the leaks itself btw, which is also notable. And, how come such a bad faith nomination was allowed to continue? Nominator says, "I don't know where to start explaining why this should be deleted. It's a disaster; feverish argument, but should be disregarded. Then says, Maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one, which overlooks
  WP:BLUD against all voters is A-okay in this discussion. — hako9 (talk) 11:50, 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, [4], [5]. — 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

]

• Keep this is still developing, there is more than the laptop story, that will be released in the future. It's a clearly separated event from the laptop controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclauren (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Maclauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Read

WP:CRYSTAL. Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Satisifies,
  WP:GNG, everything. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not a proper investigation except to satisfy the wishes of a company's new leadership, title should be changed if no consensus found AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already consensus to change the title (see

  Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022), so it will be renamed soon to just Twitter Files. However, that has nothing to do with notability criteria. MarioGom (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: This deletion discussion shouldn't be happening now, it should be happening after at least a week. There is a bloody good reason why we have
  WP:DELAY. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks largely to the

  WP:RAPID

  exists for a reason, the reason is that rapid noms are disruptive. Case in point right here.

  I decline to comment on the actual merits of the article itself. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Because no solid policy-based argument for deletion has been presented in the discussion so far. The topic is obviously notable, finding verifiable sources is entirely possible. The quality of the current revision of an article has never been an argument for deleting an article altogether.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This may become notable in the future, if actual information is revealed (rather than just insinuations designed to push a partisan agenda), or even if the partisan insinuations end up having a notable societal impact. But at the moment, there’s nothing notable here. Klausness (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3

• There is already consensus to change the title (see

  Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022), so it will be renamed soon to just Twitter Files. However, that has nothing to do with notability criteria. MarioGom (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep As others have pointed out, the case for Delete has not been made, and several of the Delete votes suggest merging as an alternative. Note that a merge does not necessarily remove any present or future content, it's more a matter of editorial convenience. In this situation I would argue that Twitter and its editorial practices are much more important subjects than Hunter Biden or his electronic devices. Twitter is under new management which seems determined to release material that it feels casts bad light on the previous management. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that incidents other that the purloined laptop might well emerge. Our article already mentions claims of interference by the Trump Administration. If we merge and other incidents get attention, we may have to unmerge. If over time it turns out that nothing significant emerges beyond the laptop issue, we can always merge then. Keeping the articles separate for the time being is the sensible thing to do. —This editor has made over 30,000 edits outside this topic, and finds the added anonymous notes on other commenter's edits obnoxious.--agr (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That should totally be a template. Maybe {{MPA}}^[2]? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename
  WP:GNG and any and all rules and regs for keeping a Wikipedia page (notable, sourced, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep but make it as succinct as possible until the release and (non-)debate around it has concluded, then sum up the event and re-evaluate if it should be merged or kept. It's certainly noteworthy, not necessarily for its content but definitely for its motives and impact. Also can we please filter out the brigading accounts here? --Kraligor (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• Keep. Easily meets
  WP:GNG. Moreover, there's no consensus in the comments above as to why this should get deleted. --Modi mode (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. It is notable and has the proper evolving current-event template at top. Revisit later if needed. 5Q5|^✉ 14:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article clearly has public interest. Deletion will, at the very least, appear to be political censorship and will make Wikipedia appear compromised. Kwroebuck (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Kwroebuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just wanted to say it does not really matter that there are more delete or keep votes, the result is not decided by majority of votes, just by enough votes "keep". Valery Zapolodov (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You just contradicted yourself. You said the number of votes doesn't matter, and then you said "just by enough votes 'keep'" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There also are vastly more keep votes then delete votes, from what I can see, for what little that's worth. casualdejekyll 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've given up trying to figure out what votes have solid reasoning behind them and which ones don't. This AFD is a mess. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, the situation has clearly changed enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the closing panel has to throw out most of the early votes. If the CRYSTALBALLing of some of the people comes true, I wouldn't be surprised if there are vastly more sources by the end of the week. At the moment, I still maintain the position that this is not a meaningfully separate thing from

  WP:TOOSOON.) casualdejekyll 14:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep notable and sources are reliable. the actual investigation of the twitter file is also a different topic than the twitter files. The files are the information about the political bias and censorship and how it did or didn't influence the election. The investigation is about Elon Musk and his release of the information to the public, the process by which he chose to do so, and the subsequent additional investigations it creates, the research, the firings within Twitter, etc. The two are separate and distinct yet heavily related articles. Sewnew (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)— Sewnew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why do some people feel entitled to control what can be said? You are free to counter any points that you don't agree with. To suppress it is tantamount to dictatorship and away from a civil society 2600:8800:1380:21D:8518:CD5E:A511:11AA (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2022 (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.

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.

1796 United States Vice Presidential Election

1796 United States Vice Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Under the original system established by Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, electors cast votes for two different candidates for president. The candidate with the highest number of votes became the president, and the second-place candidate became the vice president. There was not a 1796 Vice Presidential Election, and this article gives the false impression that there was. It is also content fork, covering the same subject matter as the 1796 United States presidential election article. Drdpw (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, History, and United States of America. Drdpw (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Per nom, this was not an actual election, it was part of the presidential election. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Content fork with an inaccurate title. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Misleading and unjustified content fork. Same concern as with 1788-89 Vice Presidential Election. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Per nom. As mentioned, unnecessary content fork. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Per nom. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Misinformation - Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Per nomination rationale: 1796 United States Vice Presidential election and the page it was redirected to: 1796 United States vice presidential election. Drdpw (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. and others. An unwarranted content fork. Sal2100 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2022 (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.

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.

1788-89 Vice Presidential Election

1788-89 Vice Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Under the original system established by Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, electors cast votes for two different candidates for president. The candidate with the highest number of votes became the president, and the second-place candidate became the vice president. There was not a 1788-89 Vice Presidential Election, and this article give the false impression that there was. It is also content fork, covering the same subject matter as the 1788–89 United States presidential election article. Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Drdpw (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom, this was not an actual election, it was part of the presidential election. Reywas92^Talk 22:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Per nom, this article is misleading and content forks should not be made without clear justification, sourcing, etc. Understand desire to "BE BOLD" but maybe we took a bit of a wrong turn here. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As Reywas92 has said. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. and others. Unwarranted content fork. Sal2100 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2022 (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.

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.

Praneeth Hewage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

I cannot find that this person passes

• Comment - It was noted here that lists of players for some Sri Lankan domestic cricket teams had been set up. This doesn't appear to include Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club. Bobo. 21:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  List of Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club cricketers – it needs full population but I've completed letters H and T to include both Hewages. BcJvs UTC 23:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD now the list has been created. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment as nom, I'm perfectly content with retargeting that list as
  WP:ATD-R. That makes a lot of sense. TartarTorte 15:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]