Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation

Twitter Files Investigation

If you came here because you saw a tweet about this discussion ([1][2]), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

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

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

Where to start…

1. Twitter Files probably needs its own separate page from Laptop story… there will be more “reveals”.

2. Wikipedia will become irrelevant & obsolete if it takes a censorship stance. People are already aware that it’s a publicly maintained site with potentially inaccurate or biased info… censorship has no place here in the global commons. 72.66.79.219 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been biased for a long time and too many individuals that have no interest in facts are allowed to edit way too much. Unlike the days of Brittanica which had no less than 5-6 SCHOLARS that edited and reviewed the work, this allowed them to remain neutral as well as relevant. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@174.125.30.248, Yes. We are biased. We're biased and we're proud of it. casualdejekyll 01:41, 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]

Until another article is written, this one should remain in place.

The point of Wikipedia is not "first time is right." It's to present the information and have the community edit it per the Wikepedia process.

It is important this starting point remain in place for the time being. TcozWiki (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — TcozWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Its a big deal, of course it deserves a wiki page. 108.185.139.118 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does this make any sense? The article exists. If you find it lacking then fix it. Deletion is not correction. The topic is clearly notable and meets GNG. Your response is lazy and screams censorship. Xenomancer (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenomancer, please do not accuse others of censorship unless there is actual evidence (or behavior) indicating censorship. Regards, — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to maintain civility. I am not trying to senselessly sling epithets. What else do you want me to call it? The evidence and behavior are apparent in the plain text of the statement I responded to. The response to an article perceived as lacking was to suggest deletion rather than correction, and with no explanation beyond calling it a "disaster". This was followed with the suggestion that the page could be allowed but only after the extant article is deleted. How else am I to interpret this? It is blatant. The wholesale removal of the work of other authors for the sake of someone else's shallowly professed feelings would aptly be called censorship, in my opinion. Please tell me what other word(s) you would use to describe this. Xenomancer (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss content and policy, not editor motives. The essay you are looking for that summarizes your position is Deletion is not cleanup. Slywriter (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenomancer, you are correct, the argument could have been more specific. However, instead of "censorship", you could say WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. But for an average editor reviewing this page, they probably won't be focusing only on the nominator's comment. From what I can see below, there are arguments for deleting, keeping, or merging, and users are engaged in active conversation (no indication of censorship). — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will call out subjective editing that smacks of censorship on a whole list of articles on here. I do not need to name individuals because that is useless and will turn into a tit for tat. Bottom line is, Twitter is RELEVANT, Elon Musk is RELEVANT and the Hunter Laptop which has been acknowledged by the Washington Post, The New York Times, Washington Times, etc. is RELEVANT. What twitter did behind the scenes to bury the lead is also RELEVANT. That was censorship, albeit under the new dogwhistle of "disinformation". I command Xenomancer for calling it out. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

174.125.30.248, Xenomancer wasn't accusing Twitter of censorship, they were accusing an editor of censorship, specifically soibangla (from my observations). Editors shouldn't accuse others of censorship unless there's evidence, or if it's obvious. Read the discussion above. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

- 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]

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. Wikisempra (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Wikisempra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete per Zaathras Andre🚐 22:10, 4 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]
Keep 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)[reply]
Delete WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, failing the 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:NOTNEWS doesn't cover this article (not original coverage for #1, not a routine announcement #2, not a "who's who" #3, not celebrity gossip #4. So that one doesn't apply. WP:RECENTISM and 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]
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]
Delete or merge – I agree with Wikisempra that many are being dishonest in understating the manifest notability of this topic. The New York Times have published a good summary of what enfolded here. But I also agree that this is a derivative topic with a questionable enduring/standalone notability. It seems clear that this is better developed as a subtopic on the main articles. And I am not convinced this stub article will get a full, focused treatment of the overall supposed revelations and the public response. I personally am uninterested in that task. It will likely linger as it presently stands, detailing virtually nothing of Taibbi's Twitter thread for readers. Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect this is literally what a simple add on to the Twitter page should do. we need to avoid WP:NEWS and 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]
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]

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]
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]
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]

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)[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.
Delete I think it's pretty clear that a single tweet thread doesn't deserve an entire article. The story in question isn't even in the public interest: a private individual asked that revenge porn, which is illegal, be stopped from being shared on a website where it was being shared. This is just not interesting. Slugiscool99 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[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:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, failing WP:10YT. At the very best, possibly a mention in the laptop article. Bearing in mind 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)[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)[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]
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)[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:RECENTISM. Much of the above votes seem to be breaches of various 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]
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]

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)[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]
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]

Consensus is not ascertained by a beancount, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Through that lens, I don't see the various lower-quality arguments offered by newer users and IPs as being a hindrance in determining consensus here, and (while there are very few that are good arguments) I would object to summarily removing their comments simply on the basis that they are new users or anonymous users; doing so is inconsistent with WP:TPO and is not warranted from an 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)[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]
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 Hunter Biden laptop controversy - nothing particularly independently notable and we arent a newsticker (per 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]
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]

@Di (they-them): The Muskrat himself has posted about this.
For Wikipedia 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)[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)[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]
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]
Speedy merge/delete - can easily be expanded in Hunter Biden laptop controversy. also I am noticing a lot of these Keep options seem to be stemming from 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:GNG together: 1. Presume it deserves an article due to existing cited coverage by NBC News, NY Post, Politico, USA Today, etc. 2. Significant coverage is shown with sources cited; Some comments in this AfD discussion imply that the coverage isn't sufficiently thorough i.e., WP:NOR, but that assertion (implicit or not) does not appear objective. 3. Reliability is confirmed by the variety of frequently used secondary sources. 4. All sources are secondary and 5. Independent of the subject. WP:GNG concludes with some general guidance to use if some of these notability guidelines are not met, but that does not apply since all are met. If editors truly wish to remove this page, I recommend first revising our general notability guidelines to support the deletion. I also recommend a thorough discussion of this AfD, as I am noticing a lot of these (speedy) Delete options seem to be stemming from 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]

The RSs are literally in the article? Nweil (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not opposed to a merge to some other topic, but when the question is "is this subject notable" the answer appears to be "yes". Some sources are only a few hours old and I'd imagine more will come, but the article currently meets WP:GNG. I don't see a rationale for deletion with the current state of available sourcing in mind (most of which don't appear to have existed at the time this AfD began), and the article being a "disaster" is a surmountable problem that can be fixed via editing rather than deletion. I don't want to just list every source but in addition to the NBC article I linked, it's got coverage in NYTimes, Axois, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, and lots more. - Aoidh (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I've done an initial pass and moved the most obviously off-topic comments to the talkpage. This does not necessarily mean I think every comment above this one is on-topic, just that I've, again, gotten the most obvious ones. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per WP:GNG, the article meets notability guidelines. It's a significant and rapidly unfolding news story with substantial implications for several public figures. It has been reported on by most major news outlets. If there are quality issues with the article, those can be resolved and, based on the high edit rate, will be resolved sooner rather than later. Deleting it would serve no purpose, as it would just need to be created again anyway. Merging it with the laptop article would be a waste of time and hinder efforts to improve quality, since it would need to be unmerged soon thereafter because it has already been announced that more Twitter Files are going to be published soon unrelated to the laptop, and that it is intended to be a regular thing, covering different aspects of the overall topic of coordination between political interests and Twitter to perform censorship. DanielDeibler (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this clearly meets GNG and as Aoidh notes there is plenty of sourcing. As this appears to be ongoing, I would expect more sourcing to follow. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. This content is due, and the question is whether it merits a standalone article or not. It might be WP:TOOSOON for the standalone article though. But I suspect that by the time this AFD expires, we might have a clearer picture. MarioGom (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's no real argument for deleting this information. It is confirmed the laptop, and its contents, are real and were generated by Hunter Biden. It is also a fact, Twitter was approached by the Biden campaign, and FBI personnel, to block distribution of the NY Post article and related topics. The purpose was to manipulate information relevant to a Presidential candidate, thus interfering with an election. That's a level of corruption, from those in government service (FBI personnel and members of Congress involved) we all need to know. To argue we should delete factual, confirmed, material is a disservice to all of us, and destroys all of Wikipedia's credibility. Moses963 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Moses963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

completely correct 96.38.143.71 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject meets our general notability requirements and is still an ongoing current event. There is enough media coverage to justify its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Hunter laptop controversy is just the first story of the Twitter Files investigation, but this event is notable already based on the unusual nature of this investigation. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider the opening phrase: "The Twitter Files are a series of internal Twitter documents". This opening establishes that The Twitter Files (hereinafter TTF) are a discrete entity that are not a subset of any other subject. The initial TTF release relates to the discussions about one multi-faceted decision (limiting the reach of one NY Post story and suspending the Post's account), but Mr. Musk promises that additional TTF releases are forthcoming concerning other heretofore unconfirmed or private communications and decisions e.g. the banning of the account of The Babylon Bee satire site. It's troubling to see Wikipedia itself seeming to bend its collective knee to the profane temper tantrums of NBC's Ben Collins and his ilk than to understand the need to retain this entryMusicmax (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept. This is a significant story. Lethalox (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to avoid further edit-warring about this, for those assisting in clerking this discussion: While this is not what I would call a good !vote (that is to say, it doesn't give the closer(s) much to consider), it is on-topic, and should not be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's basically "keep it is notable", i.e. WP:ATA. Zaathras (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets GNG. Absurd that this is even listed here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable topic, easily meeting GNG to all but the most politically biased Wikipedia editors. The topic is related to a whole set of other political topics, and as such an article summarizing these disclosures from Twitter will serve as a useful reference. Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The investigation is ongoing, with more news coming out in the last hour. There is plenty of coverage to meet the GNG. The only argument I can see being made for it's removal is it being celebrity gossip. That might be the case if the government had not colluded with twitter to remove the story just prior to an election. Sblack4 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Sblack4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why is this being deleted? It meets GNG. This is a notable topic. This is not the time to play political partisan. Xenomancer (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. Having a full article violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. So far, the investigations haven't amounted to anything. NBC News reported that it "turned out to yield little new information". Also, there is no long-term effects. Yes, lots of news sources are reporting on it, but will they report on them in 2025? In 2030? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And to those who accuse Wikipedia of Left-wing bias, there are lots of short-term articles that get deleted. For example, Hillary Clinton's Delete your account was an article that I created back in 2016 because there were lots of news reports and memes at the time, such as Time Magazine, NY Times, and NPR. However, that had no long-term effect. Trump didn't delete his account at all. Instead, Twitter banned him in 2021, before bing reinstated by Musk in late 2022. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fit in either of those suggested articles because it involves more than just the laptop story, and is being released by more journalists than Matt Taibbi. I see no instance of WP:CRYSTAL being violated in the article in question. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you advocate handling Bari Weiss' use of the materials when that starts coming out? It makes little sense to merge a scoop handed to one of two reporters on the reporter's personal page. Your proposal just doesn't work. TMLutas (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, I cannot believe we're having this discussion, given how clearly it meets GNG standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't anything here that merits a separate article. Anything approaching notability here is something that should be covered in the Hunter Biden laptop article. This just seems like a POV fork violation. Also, note to closing admin, a massive amount of the Keep votes above are indeed SPA accounts just made or re-activated after a long absence period only to vote here, due to Elon Musk tweeting and linking to this AfD. They seem to be smart enough to create a user page this time around and thus blue link their names because of it to make themselves seem more legitimate. Silver seren^C 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Twitter Files are about internal behavior at Twitter. It has separate and important value apart from anything Hunter Biden did or did not do. Shipping this material off to that page is inappropriate. It's obviously a major development when ownership of a major social media platform announces that public airing of internal dirty laundry under previous ownership is the only way to regain trust and credibility for his platform. Whether or not it's true, the page should stay because it is notable and there's no real controversy that this is Elon Musk's opinion. TMLutas (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's an ongoing news event, and it's "notoriety" should be decided upon at the end. The same discussion occurs every single time there is a document dump scandal on here and I'm sick of it. Just keep the damn page and once it all ends, then vote if it was noteworthy or not. Colliric (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy per arguments made by Οἶδα, MurrayScience, and ser! For the time being, it falls short of the GNG mark. There is, however, enough relevant content here to incorporate into the aforementioned article, A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - With no comment on notability, the article better serves our readers as a section in Hunter Biden laptop controversy - the title Twitter Files Investigation is WP:EASTEREGGy and doesn't tell readers to expect an article about Hunter Biden - additionally, I see no evidence that it is independent enough of a topic from the main article to justify it. 10YT, people. 10YT. casualdejekyll 00:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, people who are thinking about commenting in this discussion would do well to read WP:YWAB. casualdejekyll 00:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion makes little sense as the central concept of The Twitter Files goes far beyond the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The fact that very few people seem to understands this is a good argument for not further conflating the two things by merging. Title is not grounds for deletion, nor are problems with content Wikipedia:Deletion_is_not_cleanup. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People who are thinking about commenting in this discussion should also note that the essay you link to (WP:YWAB) is not Wikipedia policy Nweil (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a strawman there, as no one was claiming it was policy, that person just offered it as a useful read. There are many users who have been here for many, many years. They write essays like this, which are clearly marked as such, to offer their observations and guidance on various matters. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not Wikipedia policy either, and yet people still cite it in deletion discussions: the point of linking the essay was because I didn't find it reasonable to type out the entire contents of the essay into my !vote on an already bloated AfD. casualdejekyll 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Hunter Biden controversy article. Even if you regard Twitter having removed some Hunter Biden revenge porn as something controversial, there is nothing in this article that stands alone from the main Hunter Biden one. Maybe if more content emerges and gets covered, it can be its own controversy page, but it should probably have a more descriptive name. "Twitter files controversy"? "Internal Twitter communications controversy"? If we do end up keeping it, in just its current form, then it definitely needs a move. I'd suggest something like "Twitter deletion of Hunter Biden revenge porn controversy". -Kieran (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show a single source that is used referring to this being about revenge porn? I'm aware of this being a common twitter refrain but looking at all the sources, they discuss removal of content at request of Dem campaign, imply other requests from Republican campaign and document a struggle to understand rationale for suppressing the NYPost story. This is beyond the laptop now and is about the internal governance of one of the world's largest social media companies. Slywriter (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't even news, it's the opposite. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't the place for censorship. And Wikipedia is not 'News', it's a library of documented facts, which happens to include events. Your level of interest, and you personal opinions, are irrelevant to it. 115.69.29.89 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 115.69.29.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You're right. Wikipedia is not news. Did you read WP:NOTNEWS? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as others have said, with the Hunter Biden article (or maybe just put it under a controversy section on Twitter or something similar). While I feel that this is news, therefore covered by WP:NOTNEWS, (and is backed up appropriately by the reliable sources on the page's citations), it's not detailed or specific enough to have its own page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge When in doubt (which this discussion shows), keep, or merge if the topic of the unveil itself is found deeply non-topical (beyond me!). Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This isn't about the laptop. It's about the first amendment violations and interference in elections. Fharryn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Fharryn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Except there are no first amendment violations as the first amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities like Twitter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is when the request for denial of free speech comes from a government entity which IS subject to the laws of The Constitution. So yeah. Twitter would never be in trouble for this, but the government entities requesting the removal could certainly be. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to fact-check sources or argue about the laws. We are here to judge the content of articles in accordance with our policies. Also, please read said policies before voting. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And for that matter, I have no clue what it has to do with interference in elections either casualdejekyll 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that this is a good argument to improve this article instead of deleting/merging it. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's well established at this point (20 years of precedent) that if a section in an article gets too long and unwieldy, it can be split back out easily. WP:SPLIT. I would recommend only attempting such a thing ~3 months+ down the line when we truly know if everyone will have remembered this all or not. casualdejekyll 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no one mentions this 3 months down the line then it can be merged wherever is most appropriate. I see no good argument for deletion, and no sensible suggestion for where it should be merged to right now. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument assumes that "having an article" is the default state. We disagree on this, it seems. casualdejekyll 01:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to surveys, something like 12% (no source for now, but one could be found) of Biden voters would have changed their votes or stayed home had they known Joe Biden was allegedly connected to the wrongdoings. That would have been enough to change the winner in about 9 states. That could have changed the outcome of the election. Fharryn (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post says no. Your turn to provide a source, please. casualdejekyll 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and NOTCENSORED. Merging is not a good way to organize this information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? And NOTCENSORED makes no sense as an argument, as Matt Taibbi#Twitter Files isn't going anywhere, and I imagine this can be discussed at other pages as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, no one who is suggesting merge has suggested an appropriate article to merge it to. Do you have a suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know it's easy to miss in this massive discussion, but multiple people have suggested Hunter Biden laptop controversy and Matt Taibbi#Twitter Files. casualdejekyll 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't miss those suggestions. As stated, neither fits the bill. The Twitter Files is not about Hunter's laptop, and it's not exclusively a Matt Taibbi thing. I'm not opposed to a merge, but these two articles are not viable options. Got another suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Twitter Files is not about Hunter's laptop is a statement I'd dispute - it's about a New York Post article about Hunter's laptop, which is pretty much the same thing. casualdejekyll 01:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's more involved. There's more to come. This is just the beginning. Fharryn (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed. casualdejekyll 01:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Taibbi Fharryn (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY. I should clarify: secondary source citation needed. casualdejekyll 01:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This just bolsters the argument that we need an article to explain it to people who don't understand this is not about Hunter. The first release was not exclusively about Hunter... and there are more installments to come. Seems like a good move to wait it out and then see where it best fits if indeed it becomes appropriate to be merged somewhere. Do you have a suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good move to wait it out and then see where it best fits if indeed it becomes appropriate to be merged somewhere. - Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Notability (events) etc, the "waiting it out" is more of a question of waiting to see if it becomes definitely appropriate to split. casualdejekyll 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already appropriate to split because there is no existing article that it properly fits in. Do you have a suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said multiple times already, Hunter Biden laptop controversy is a great fit. Your response to me claiming "it's about a New York Post article about Hunter's laptop" was that "it's not about Hunter", when it... looks like it is? This argument is going in circles. casualdejekyll 01:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Biden laptop controversy is only a small part of this as many here other than me have pointed out. It's a terrible fit. Any other suggestions? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot like saying that we should restore Willy on Wheels's vandalism to the main page because an erect penis is notable and we aren't censored. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It had a signficant amount of coverage and debate in reliable sources like CNN, so it is notable and should have it's own article. Yes if some Wikipedia vandal had major coverage the article about that vandalism can have an article, indeed there is at least one such article Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident about a notable Wikipedia hoax incident (not the hoax itself, but the article about the hoax. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin: The following keep accounts were inactive for extended periods or appear to be single-purpose/canvassed: TMLutas (3 edits in 12 months preceding, 5 here), Capt. Milokan (2 edits in last 12 months), Xenomancer (8 edits in last five years, 3 here), Sblack4 (confirmed sock), Tvaughan1 (no edits between June 2021 and this AfD), Bbny-wiki-editor (4 edits in 12 months preceding), Moses963 (sole edit), DanielDeibler (no other edits in last 10 years), 172.78.61.241 (sole IP edit), Jimmy zed0 (sole edit), 73.223.59.4 (sole IP edit), 68.98.61.205 (sole IP edit), AlfieNewman52 (two other edits, extreme UNCIVIL), Ninety Mile Beach (8 other edits in last 10 years, but also semi-active on German Wiki), 111.119.178.138 (9 edits in preceding 12 months, repeatedly abused IP address), HarryRAlexander (9 other edits), 2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85 (1 other edit), Peregrine Fisher (1 other edit in preceding 12 months). It seems that the vast majority of Keep votes come from users that match this profile. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to add that there were other accounts that match these characteristics–all also voting some variation of Keep–but I don't think it's the job of a non-admin to catalog every questionable AfD edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether to keep or delete an article should be based on the merits of the argument and not on the prior Wikipedia editing history of the persons making the argument. If what you say is correct, all that probably suggests is a political bias on the part of regular Wikipedia editors, nothing more. 151.210.141.140 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're mostly wrong here. There are many single-purpose accounts or canvassed IPs or accounts, which should not be happening. If single-purpose accounts were allowed, someone could just create a dozen accounts and vote "keep" a dozen times, or perhaps use a dozen IPs. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The final action here won't be based on a vote count, so the argument that "Anyone could create a dozen accounts and vote 'keep/delete'" falls flat. Those people would also have to make a viable argument for the keep/delete... or they will not be considered. If they -can- make a viable argument for keep/delete, then this should not be discounted based on "past participation patterns". 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. While we don't do headcounts in such discussions, the number of editors voting keep/delete can affect the result. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that the "merits of the argument" are hotly debated - and you don't seem to have put forward an argument yourself, either. casualdejekyll 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@151.210.141.140: Within controversial AfD discussions, it is standard to review whether the scales might be tipped one way or another by behaviors that are prohibited by policy and applied without regard to partisan persuasion. In this instance, a significant number of Keep votes come from editors whose behaviors are consistent with policy-violating actions. Speaking frankly and at the risk of appearing trite, I am among those disgruntled and disapproving of the suppression campaign against the laptop investigation. However, I think the contents of this article should be merged elsewhere based on policy. Similar merit-based stances are permissible, aggrieved and unsubstantiated claims of bias are not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Does not warrant a separate article, but notable enough to be mentioned in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. Ultimograph5 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I second that does not warrant a separate article, but is notable enough to be mentioned in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article (this vote was corrected as instructed by another contributor). Perenista (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Perenista (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
FYI, the vote is on whether or not to keep the article, not the content. If you believe we should move the content into the Hunter Biden laptop article (which I fully agree with by the way), that would be a Merge vote. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is covered by reliable sources and is notable. Some1 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obviously notable. —WWoods (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE coming from a relatively-inactive sysop is an interesting position.. especially coming from someone who hasn't !voted in an AfD in five years... And for that matter, the last one before that was ten years ago. Perhaps standards have changed. casualdejekyll 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never realized that WP:ITSNOTABLE was a specific policy/essay, but I'm glad it is. I think a lot of the replies here could be considered WP:ITSNOTABLE (or "it's not notable"). Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There was lots of news coverage and debate in reliable sources about this. A lot of arguments to delete are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Then you argue against those individually. "Some arguments for X are bad" doesn't mean that "All arguments for X are bad". Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond to some comments, but bascially all the delete arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, incorrect claims it had no signficant news coverage (which is flat-out false, it was discussed in many major sources like CNN), or just citing random policies without explaining how they apply. What matters is that this topic had signficant coverage on national TV and was the subject of much debate, which means it's notable regardless of how imporant the files themselves actually are. The debate of whether the files are imporant or underwhelming is something the article can discuss (citing reliable sources as necessary). If something not politically charged got this much attention for sure there would be an article about it and it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not precisely directed us towards anything that, according to policy, suggests this topic isn't wholly subordinate to a larger topic. I was on the other side of a similar debate a couple months ago defending an article I had created. If you would like, you can see how a similar debate occurs outside the culture war here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a critical piece of information. Please keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.136.46 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 99.179.136.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@99.179.136.46: Information on this will appear somewhere, but just not as its own article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not voting on whether or not this information is critical alone. Instead, we intend to determine if this needs its own article. If the answer to that is no, then it's also possible that it needs to be a section of some other article, but not have its own article. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We know more Twitter Files are planned to be released, which means more information will be added. Having a place for that information will prevent clutter and duplicate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.114.239 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 73.240.114.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:TOOSOON is still valid, though? casualdejekyll 02:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's too early to make any permanent decision on this evolving situation. Gentgeen (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]