Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 4

Guide to deletion

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)

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)
• 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)
• Keep Per above, article has been greatly improved since nomination and clearly passes GNG.Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Did I mention that guideline sports? No, I referenced WP:GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

• Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. 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)
• Keep notable cyclist. Bruxton (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) jp×g 02:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 SDI page); furthermore few sources mention it, almost exclusively with reference to the leader Donato Robilotta and not to the party itself. It does not seem to me that this party meets WP:GNG. I can imagine replies like that the sources have disappeared because a few years have passed from its foundation and that every little piece of political history deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, but if notability cannot be proved it cannot be assumed, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

@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)

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)

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

Twitter Files Investigation

Twitter Files Investigation (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 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)

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)

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)

@174.125.30.248, Yes. We are biased. We're biased and we're proud of it. I'm proud of it, not everyone is or agrees, see comment below by jpxg. But I think the point still stands. casualdejekyll 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please dont speak for all editors User:Casualdejekyll. Thanks Nweil (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@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)

JPxG, see their link. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

It seems like you are arguing that the article should remain as it is a subject that will be notable in the future. Please consider WP:CRYSTAL, orWP:NEXIST - an article is not notable unless it is notable now. In order to be notable, it would need to be considered notable for some other reason (e.g. shocking claims that had a widespread impact) by independent sources - which is very different from a single celebrity "implying there was a pattern".

If this event does become notable in the future, there is no reason why this page cannot simply be restored. Wikipedia is intended to be read as it is right now. Articles that merely may one day be notable clearly should not be something presented to readers right now.

On the contrary to "only confirming bias", deleting the page would be setting a bad precedent that justifies the creation of articles on topics that notable figures claim will be significant - this precedent would be made stronger by it being so public. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE 197.136.58.40 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

Strongly agree Pixk1 (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Pixk1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

Very well said Cwojahn (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

- 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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

  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.

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

  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)

• 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.
• Delete per Zaathras Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

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

  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.

• 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)

  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)

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

  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)

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

  @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)

• 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)

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

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

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

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

  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)

• Delete This is a three-sentence description of a self-published internet page. Not Notable. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Delete -- under the scope of the laptop article. Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia being infiltrated is not accepted knowledge, and this talk page is not a source (nor is it notable 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

  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)

Amen! 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Anticipated future events do not mean that a given topic currently meets criteria for inclusion (WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NRV). Wikipedia is also not a soapbox, so the idea the article is "crucial to [Wikipedia's] survival" is not a reason for its inclusion either. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Again with the "censorship". Can you provide any example of censorship? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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.

  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.

• Keep. The Twitter files are ongoing with relevant factual information. Gensao (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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)
• 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.
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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.

• 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.

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.

• Keep Noteworthy article, can surely be expanded.--Sakiv (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
• Keep certainly relevant. Please expand. Ninety Mile Beach (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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.

  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.

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
  • 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)

    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)

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.

• 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.

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

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

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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.

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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

  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)

  @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) — 92.10.171.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  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)

  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.

• 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)

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

  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)

  Mathmo, read WP:RECENTISM and 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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.
• 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)

  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)

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

• 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)
•  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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • Keep. Given recent developments, such as a second release being handled by Bari Weiss, Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files is not a good merge target anymore. Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations still is, although it might fall short for things such as Jim Baker role, etc. With 13 reliable sources cited in the article, and many more being published in the last ~12 hours, this is looking really good in terms of WP:GNG. It's hard to assess if WP:PERSISTENCE will be met, but I doubt it'll change things in the future given the amount and depth of already existing coverage. MarioGom (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• This article should be kept. This is a significant story. Lethalox (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • 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)

    It's basically "keep it is notable", i.e. WP:ATA. Zaathras (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly meets GNG. Absurd that this is even listed here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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. Silverseren^C 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  Additionally, people who are thinking about commenting in this discussion would do well to read WP:YWAB. casualdejekyll 00:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't even news, it's the opposite. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  • 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.

  You're right. Wikipedia is not news. Did you read WP:NOTNEWS? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

• Keep per GNG and NOTCENSORED. Merging is not a good way to organize this information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  There's more involved. There's more to come. This is just the beginning. Fharryn (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Citation needed. casualdejekyll 01:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Matt Taibbi Fharryn (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARY. I should clarify: secondary source citation needed. casualdejekyll 01:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  If you have a secondary, reliable source that can show this please share it. Currently all the arguments made regarding this have relied on claims that there will be evidence in the future. Casualdejekyll is right that in a case like this, the guidelines they cite indicate that keeping a standalone article off the basis that the article may be significant in the future (without a reliable source saying this) is inappropriate. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There is half a dozen articles the Twitter Files could just easily be argued it "should be" merged into.

  But my stance is that it should be merged into none of them. Twitter Files is its own standalone article. [User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] ^Talk 11:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't contributing to this specific discussion. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Why not? And NOTCENSORED makes no sense as an argument, as Matt Taibbi#Twitter Files isn't going anywhere"

  Imagine if every topic about the Republic of China was deleted? Would you call that censorship, or nothing to see here... is just merely "deletion".

  Also why do you think this should be merged with Matt Taibbi?? When lots of people have suggested merging with the Biden Laptop Scandal instead. And I can easily think of half a dozen other wikipedia articles it could be argued it "should be" merged with.

  Clearly in such a situation it shouldn't be merged with any of those! And deserves to be its own stand alone article, especially when it is way over a thousand words already. Mathmo ^Talk 11:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

So what? Not everyone can be online 25/7 to make changes on a daily basis. 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 65.190.23.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@65.190.23.202: You're right! Some people can commit more time to this project than others, leading to an imbalance of experience between editors. As such, perspectives from established editors with 10 years of unblemished contributions will likely be held in higher esteem than first-time editors. Don't let this dissuade you from contributing, but recognize that in discussions such as these, tenure plays a role. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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.

  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)

• Keep It is covered by reliable sources and is notable. Some1 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep It's obviously notable. —WWoods (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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.

  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)

  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)

  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)

  This is a nomination to delete the article, not to merge it. If merging is optimal, a request to merge should be made instead and that can be debated. I've seen arguments above that this topic doesn't fit well into proposed merging targets though. The license for Wikipedia articles requires attribution so if a merge is the right approach the article generally can't be deleted, see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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.

• @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)

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)

Arbitrary Break 2

• 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.

  WP:TOOSOON is still valid, though? casualdejekyll 02:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• keep It's too early to make any permanent decision on this evolving situation. Gentgeen (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment In my opinion, which may be radical, this article in parallel with this contentious AFD ignore the ideals of the platform as not encyclopedic, NOTNEWS, and Recentism. There will most likely be no long-term significance of the information included" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• keep This is a major topic involving many important public figures and a major corporation with the attention of millions of people. Twitter files is also an ongoing story which will likely have major political and social repercussions. Therefore it should stay. TzafnatPaneach 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to List of conspiracy theories→StaniStani 02:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Stanistani:: Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE for an explainer on why to avoid unconstructive votes like this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  List of conspiracy theories?... Seriously

  To quote your self serving page

  ....Wikipedia is an encyclopedia managed by people who care more about social niceties and minutiae than presenting 'the sum of human knowledge. That's not what we're supposed to be here for. We should try to do better.

  So @Stanistani... follow you own advice....try to do better than Conspiracy Theories 49.190.74.223 (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I've done an additional pass cleaning up off topic comments. I'll give the same caveat as Tamzin; this does not necessarily mean I think every comment above this one is on-topic, just that I've dealt with the most obvious instances. Seddon ^talk 02:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• keep This is an evolving story and a page will permit expanded documentation. Gulbenk (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, an article can be created when the story has evolved. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• keep Wikipedia is widely seen as an NPOV source. Deleting this article will damage Wikipedia reputation for years because it is clearly a denounce of improper conduct on part of Twitter executives by the new owner that will be ignored by this site at the peril not only of its reputation as a neutral source but also at the risk of becoming a curious Encyclopaedia that involves itself in the same misconduct denounced by Elon Musk. If this article is deleted the next article about this issue will have the title of "Wikipedia deletion of Twitter Files article" because, rest assured, to delete this article will make the news in minutes and there will be plenty of references to use about this page to create a new one about our behaviour. Ciroa (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep per WP:GNG. Sources include NYT, WAPO, CNN, Bloomberg News, USA Today, The Atlantic, and NBC. 'Nuff said. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  WP:GNG is true, but the topic as it currently stands isn't being covered outside of the Hunter Biden allegations, so it's best covered in a section of that article until and unless it becomes independently covered from the Hunter Biden situation. casualdejekyll 03:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep as this topic is well-sourced as indicated by User:Adoring nanny above. Do not merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy, because the Hunter Biden-related correspondence is only the first set of Twitter files being released by Musk. I expect some other Twitter files released will have nothing to do with the Bidens. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  The problem with this arguement is WP:CRYSTALBALLing; we can't cover future Twitter Files before reliable sources report on them. casualdejekyll 03:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  If it turns out that I'm wrong and no Twitter files are ever released other than those dealing with Hunter Biden's laptop, then we can revisit the idea of a merge later. But we should avoid a premature merge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That is still WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article can be recreated IF there are future files. But this discussion is about the current iteration. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete We are not going to sit here and pretend as though off-wiki canvassing was not influenced by Elon Musk’s Tweet. The Twitter files is a huge nothing burger, and doesn’t deserve a Wikipedia article. Also, is is a massive violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, and many, many other Wikipedia rules and policies.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep as there is suppression of FBI links to the Twitter Files by James A. Baker. Says the significance of this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelled (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep would be deeply deeply ironic if Wikipedia censors a story about censorship. Would break every irony meter on the planet. Let's not do that! Mathmo ^Talk 04:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Mathmo, you provided no actual argument. The potential to "break every irony meter on the planet" is not a policy, from what I can remember. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    No, it isn't a specific policy by name. But I was phrasing that to point out just how far out ridiculous it would be for wikipedia to censor this story! Especially as wikipedia is meant to be fundamentally anticensorship of any notable topic (WP:NOTCENSORED). Could you just imagine the backlash which would happen? Hello Streisand effect! Mathmo ^Talk 09:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Mathmo, Wikipedia shouldn't operate with the fear of being accused of censorship. Deleting articles normally isn't considered censorship, it's just called "deleting". I don't fully understand what it is that you're saying. If I were to vote "delete" or "keep", the idea of censorship or off-wiki accusations of censorship shouldn't have to affect my decision. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    "Wikipedia shouldn't operate with the fear of being accused of censorship. "

    Yes, and the reason why is because.... wikipedia shouldn't be censoring! That's a really really easy way to not live in so called "fear of accused of censorship". By not doing it.

    Imagine if every topic about the Republic of China was deleted? Would you call that censorship, or nothing to see here... is just merely "deletion". Mathmo ^Talk 10:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Mathmo, please explain, in detail, how WP:NOTCENSORED applies to this discussion. Editors here are engaged in a meaningful conversation. Is this a case of bad faith assumption, or can you cite specific policy? Because I'm not seeing any censorship here. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    As I've already said, imagine if every topic about the Republic of China was deleted? Would you call that censorship, or nothing to see here... is just merely "deletion". Mathmo ^Talk 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Mathmo, we usually examine deletion discussions as they appear. If they are censorship, we should be able to cite, from policy, what censorship is specifically, not just what we think is censorship, and then provide an actual example of that "censorship". However, you aren't citing any policies or providing any examples. Most of your comments here are empty (because they contain no examples). And you're reducing the "delete" and "merge" votes to the level of blatant censorship? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    No, I am asking you just a common sense question here, which you wouldn't answer: imagine if every topic about the Republic of China was deleted? Would you call that censorship, or nothing to see here... is just merely "deletion".

    Yes, there are many other points I could make about this article, and why it should be kept, as I've pointed out repeatedly elsewhere in this AfD. But let's not be distracted and focus on the current thread of conversation and answer this one simple question I ask of you. Mathmo ^Talk 11:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    While I personally would find it very strange for someone to nominate every article about the Republic of China for deletion, this just isn't relevant to the current discussion. You're claiming there's "censorship" here. You'll need to provide specific examples and specific quotes from policy. If someone is deleting every article about the Republic of China, they probably won't be able to provide examples of anything. In fact, instead of being "censorship", it would probably just be vandalism. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete The topic of the article does not appear to be noteworthy enough to justify an independent article. Reception of the Twitter Files has been largely lukewarm, and most arguments for notability seem to stem from promised future developments. Well, if the topic develops into something more noteworthy, maybe an article would be justified, but right now it is not. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Editors originating from Twitter might be good to learn that AfD and other discussions are not subject to a popular vote. Simply flooding "keep" with little substantive contribution is not effective. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Wikipedia do-no-harm first, provide information second. It has long been this way and the world's gaze on some Billionaire should not deter the vast majority of Wikipedia editors to do what they do: the-right-thing! 2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC) real_name_hidden — 2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  What harm? Are you suggesting that harm/jail would come to these people? 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 65.190.23.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Censoring/deleting an article is doing harm to the wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 09:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• keep First of all it is about corruption allegations about one of biggest communication websites on internet right now, by itself already makes the theme noteworthy, but not only that.

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

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

Also

• Comment Most of comments calling for deletion (including the calls to discredit the opinions of other users for inactivity) clearly show an opinion of (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). the fact one of editors in this talk (for no reason) gratuitously offended Musk and the people that showed to talk about their opposite opinions for the deletion shames me as editior , Wiki talks are supposed to be a Civil space independently of the political opinion you may or not have

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

Meganinja202, if you haven't heard of single-purpose accounts, then please do read about them. And reducing all "delete" votes to "IDONTLIKEIT" is complete misrepresentation. Finally, it doesn't matter if a dozen news outlets have reported on this. Do you think they'll still be publishing articles about this in the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years? That is more important. Why? Read WP:RECENTISM for a good explanation. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I do know about purpose accounts but i don't think this is the case, i believe that most inactive people showed up to voice their concerns about this question in Good Faith.

Also, i do think people will continue talking about it in a way or another, independtly of political spectrium, especially since is already impacting the 2024 US elections debate and newer talks about Government intervention on Social Media are arising.

If people think it is a misunderstood or it just is a theory, they should voice those concerns on the talk page or try to edit to voice their bias better Meganinja202 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Also i said MOST opinions, not ALL opinions, there is a difference Meganinja202 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The argument to keep is a “Well… duh” proposition. This article covers an exceedingly important topic that is generating keen public interest. Without a doubt, it is every bit as encyclopedic a topic as List of Green Acres episodes. Greg L (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I want to note that this article was nominated for deletion a little over an hour after it was created. I think it would have been wise to wait for a week to allow for the article to develop so a real analysis of the subject’s sources could occur. Thriley (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I do agree as well, i think they should had waited more to start this Meganinja202 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the person who nominated it for deleting was very trigger happy. It would have been wrong to delete the article back when it was AfD-ed, and as every hour passes the story only further develops and expands. (for instance just recently it being discovered an ex-FBI employee with a dodgy past has been scrubbing clean, without authorization, the documents being released from Twitter to journalists) Thus further cementing this topic's place as one of important encyclopedic notability. Mathmo ^Talk 09:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mathmo, CITATION NEEDED — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Here is your citation for my earlier statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files_Investigation&type=revision&diff=1125600449&oldid=1125586660 That's 27 minutes apart, which as I said was less than half an hour after the article was created! Indeed, the nominator was very premature and trigger happy in trying to get this topic deleted. Mathmo ^Talk 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete / Merge. Binarybits put it better than I would. I would only add that obviously .../wiki/Twitter_Files_Investigation ought to then redirect to the appropriate subsection wherever the content should land. 04:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QRep2020 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Clearly this is generating a lot of interest and discussion, and the very fact that its drawing so many attmepts to delete it is proof of its relevance Dragonfangxl (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Dragonfangxl (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  While the above user has made only a bit over a dozen edits, they haven't edited in this topic until today. @Nythar: Why did you apply an SPA tag to this user, when the account seems to have been used for other purposes besides this before? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk, perhaps {{subst:canvassed|username}} would be a better idea? I'm clearly seeing many inactive users arriving here en masse, as can be expected from tweets such like this one. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Inactive People that use wiki but don't edit much will get themselves curious also some are afraid of censorship in some shape or form, i don't blame them voice their opinions as long it is Civil and in Good Faith. This is no different as if some other public figure complained on social media about something about on Wikipedia.

  i think we should look when the accounts (count only accounts created before the posting of tweet) were created instead of how many edits they had made.

  Meganinja202 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Meganinja202, what does "afraid of censorship" mean? That is not relevant to the notability of this article. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Im not talking about reasons to keep the article up, I am talking about why people get motivated to share their opinions here, they may cite other reasons to keep the article beyond the censorship issue Meganinja202 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  When the article is specifically about censorship itself, then it is no surprise whatsoever when people bring up censorship itself in their discussions in the AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 09:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  If you're concerned that they've been canvassed, then I think using a canvassed tag would make more sense than labeling them an SPA when the SPA label is borderline or assumes bad faith in the editor. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Red-tailed hawk, alright, thank you. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 05:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Using off-site canvassing to draw attention to a discussion does not mean the topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Any attempt to remove this important article would constitute nothing more than an attempted cover-up of one of the most important stories of this year. Wikipedia has to decide just what Wikipedia wants to be, and how relevant it wants to remain. David Barber (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• @David Barber: Your comment is tangential to this discussion. If the content is merged to the article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, what exactly is being covered up? Please stick to the merits of an article when discussion its deletion or merger. More information on appropriate points of debate can be found here; consider reviewing them and amending your reasoning (you might come to the same conclusion you have already!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  It is a "coverup" by trying to reduce one of the biggest stories of the month into merely a footnote of another article. When clearly a topic of this grand scope and importance requires an article of its own. Mathmo ^Talk 09:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS D4R1U5 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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.
• This is a canvassed nightmare but I will give my 2 cents: Merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy per Wikipedia:Recentism. This sounds like a breaking news that is going to die off in a few days. I think it is too soon to make a decision on notability. I recommend restoring the article if the topic continues to have more coverage and there are new discoveries. I definitely oppose deletion because a lot of the article are now in good quality and well-sourced. This can go to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy without any changes. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 05:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• Delete per Muboshgu. This fails Wikipedia:RECENTISM, 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)

  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)

  Alexandria Bucephalous, as I stated above, it doesn't matter how many news outlets have articles on this. Since you're relatively new here, I recommend you read 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)

  "...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)

• 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)

• @Sofeshue: This is not really a commentary on the subject's notability according to WP:GNG nor its worthiness of being an independent article according to our other policies. Please consider amending your vote to reflect reasoning based on the article and subject's merits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

• 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.

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

  @Wombat-911 Can you explain how random strangers on Wikipedia are being "encouraged" to delete this article? Also remember to assume good faith, accusing editors of WP:COI without proof is not a good practice. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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 Hunter Biden laptop controversy and the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. We don't need a separate article for every flash-in-the-pan expose, article, or meme that gets pushed as a part of that. Note that many of the arguments made above and below for keeping are either plainly false or are fundimentially speculative to the point of WP:TENDness. For instance, many arguments assume an importance that the sourcing definitely doesn't justify. It is also flatly untrue that most sources are using this name; higher-quality ones mention it at most once, in quotes, as a term used by Musk and Taibbi; since they don't use it themselves and treat it as a non-neutral title, the title here fails WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. Simply having sources covering an aspect of a topic is insufficient to justify creating an additional article on its own, especially when this risks becoming a 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) 09:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alfy32 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• 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)
• 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)
  • Mstf221, maybe if you 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.

  So many people are arriving here because Elon unleashed his army on this. See WP:CAN. D4R1U5 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

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)

• 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:ATD. We then have veiled implications by some that the keep !voters are maybe influenced by alt right and far right. Also, looks like WP:BLUD against all voters is A-okay in this discussion. — hako9 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Isn't much, but this is receiving continuing significant coverage, [4], [5]. — hako9 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Specifically, the 2nd point of WP:NOTNEWS. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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.

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

• Keep Satisifies, WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG, everything. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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:RAPID, which applies regardless of whether someone failed to WP:DELAY. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks largely to the WP:RAPID creation of this AfD, we now have a giant hurricane of nonsense, and it will take a lot longer to close this than if the AfD had been held a week later. It didn't have to be nominated so flipping quickly. Such nominations are always disruptive. If there is anything to learn from all this, it is to remember that 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

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

• Keep and rename Twitter Files, meets 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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 Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but who knows how I'll feel in three days. (This type of AfD disaster is exactly why we have WP:TOOSOON.) casualdejekyll 14:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

References

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. WP:SNOW. czar 02:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Delete – Content fork with an inaccurate title. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Misleading and unjustified content fork. Same concern as with 1788-89 Vice Presidential Election. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Per nom. As mentioned, unnecessary content fork. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: Per nom. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Misinformation - Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Speedy delete per nom. and others. An unwarranted content fork. Sal2100 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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. WP:SNOW. czar 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)
• Speedy delete As Reywas92 has said. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. and others. Unwarranted content fork. Sal2100 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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 redirect to List of Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club cricketers. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Praneeth Hewage

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 WP:GNG from my WP:BEFORE and per WP:NCRICKET cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. While this person does did play in the highest level of domestic cricket in Sri Lanka, I could not find evidence of notability to justify an article. TartarTorte 21:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• Redirect to List of Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club cricketers. Sorry, I've removed my previous entry as I got the wrong Hewage. The guy I looked at is called Pishan Hewage and listed under H by CA as P. C. Hewage. Praneeth Hewage is listed under T as U. H. P. Thimanka! He played only one top-class match, so best to apply WP:ATD-R. I've just created 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)
• Redirect to List of Sri Lanka Air Force Sports Club cricketers Obviously looks to fail GNG, but did play and would have qualified for the old notability guidelines. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD now the list has been created. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

World Sunni Movement

World Sunni Movement (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)

This is the second time this non-notable Bengali organisation is being requested to be deleted. As mentioned by @Owais Al Qarni: in the previous AfD, the article is essentially an advertisement with trivial sources that do not pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Ironically, the article was speedy deleted in Bengali Wikipedia too, yet this article (which is on a Bengali-speaking organisation) still exists on English Wikipedia. In May 2022, the article was restored but not improved in any way shape or form. SalamAlayka (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep It seems that there is lots of coverage in both Bengali and international media, but the article could definitely be cleaned up for WP:NPOV. Chagropango (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Keep Bad faith nomination. Multiple reliable sources are there for WP:GNG. Clean up does not mean deletion of an article. Maliner (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  Delete. Why has the article not been improved, even after its un-deletion was requested? How about you provide some of these "multiple reliable sources" rather than vaguely mentioning them as if they even exist in the first place. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do not you ask these questions to Editonlineforpassion. Because article undeletion was requested by them. Maliner (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Sunni Movement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Dfinity

Dfinity (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)

Fails WP:NCRYPTO and WP:NCORP only coverage seems to be about fundraisers, lacks depth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete all sources are about funding announcements and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Administrator note: Originally closed as "soft delete", which was contested. I have reopened the discussion. ✗plicit 14:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Probably shouldn't be deleted. Value from this article exists currently, and will further develop over time. 2601:18F:480:8A0:EDD5:3CCE:51B0:2F56 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  DFINITY is a real non profit foundation dedicated to R&D that supports the Internet Computer Protocol blockchain. In my opinion, these wiki pages should not be deleted. They bring a lot of value to web3 concepts and capabilities. 73.115.24.162 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Why is this considered for deletion and where else do you discuss the dfinity foundation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:2A80:5B00:7D24:AA81:21BA:6BC1 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason for considering this article for deletion is in the deletion statement at the top of this discussion. The only place to discuss the article subject is on its talk page but that page is for discussing improvements to the article, it's not a discussion forum. This discussion is the place to discuss whether or not the article should be deleted based on Wikipedia policy-based reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Borderline delete - coverage in three RSes, which is good for a crypto thing - but when you look it's funding rounds and WP:CRYSTAL. That's not really enough to pass WP:NCORP. A bit of a REFBOMB of passing mentions and yellow-rated sources that can't be used for notability, like TechCrunch. This isn't there yet - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Borderline delete, Agree with David Gerard, these sources feel like the best of the bunch to me. From my understand of the guidelines listed above, I do not feel that these sources establish notability. You play to win the game (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

References

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 merge to Horagalles. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Pajonn

Pajonn (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)

The article is completely unsourced, and I was unable to find any English-language source on the subject. It may deserve a sentence in Sami mythology or Sami culture or smth similar, but if it remains unsourced it doesn't need a separate article. Artem.G (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge @Artem.G: Did you include the Google books hits into your WP:BEFORE search? As also shown by Phil Bridger, there are English sources which have a short description/definition. On a very short glance I did not see longer treatments, so a merge to Sámi shamanism#List of deities Horagalles seems best to me based on that. If more in-depth sources are found, I'd be happy to revise my !vote. Daranios (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've checked google scholar, and there is no article that talks about the god. I don't think it should be deleted entirely, but merged to another article, as I wrote above. Artem.G (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And I saw entries about Pajonn in encyclopedias through google books, but it's merely a mention, just one sentence each in "A Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons" and in "The Routledge Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons", which seems like different editions of the same book. Artem.G (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Merge to Horagalles, where the Sami gods of thunder are discussed. The Sami people speak multiple languages, and so there are multiple names for their god of thunder.[6] Merging to Sámi shamanism#List of deities is not wrong, but I think it is better to merge Pajonn to the more specific article on the ensemble of Sami thunder gods. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This source also states that Pajon is an alias of Doragass, which in turn is a distorted version of Horagallas. That sources also has a bit more to say than the one-sentence-definition of most of the deity encyclopedias. Daranios (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That source is unavailable for me, but I think you are right. One more solution is to merge it to the Horagalles, but also add Pajonn to the list of gods. Artem.G (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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 merge to Sergio Cecotti. Choosing to Merge as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Convergence for Friuli

Convergence for Friuli (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)

A local party that existed (presumably) for a short time, but which does not meet WP:GNG. Apart from some rare mention on articles referring to personalities who were part of it (and not to the party itself), I found only a couple of sources on this party, the first source ([7]) refers to its foundation, the second source ([8]) refers to the substantial absence of this party on the territory and in the press. I can imagine replies like that the sources have disappeared because a few years have passed and that every little piece of political history deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, but I already reply that if notability cannot be proved it cannot be assumed, and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers information that would be difficult to find anywhere else. This said, there are more than 1,000 Google hits on this party, meaning that it had significant news coverage, and it was represented in the Regional Council of Friuli-Venezia Giulia. If there is no consensus on keeping the article, it could be merged into Sergio Cecotti. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Google hits prove nothing, especially in cases like this... Surely it would be more logical to merge it with Sergio Ceccotti, since it was his personal party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete no sources found for this party. What's given in the article isn't much for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NORG criteria for establishing notability, not finding any sourcing that meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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 redirect to Kerosene. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Keroselene

Keroselene (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've found a dusty old stub. Keroselene does not appear to be noteworthy by any means, and could possibly be made up to some degree. Searching it shows the word was used to describe petroleum distillate in a smattering of instances in the late 1800's, and was poorly defined on what it was back then. The term has not really been used since. I suspect the term was abanonded once the chemistry of petroleum products were more well understood.

The article has existed as a stub for 13+ years and has a single citation from the 1800's. I wasn't able to find other sources that could expand upon it. As it is, because this term is at best poorly defined and not in use, this page should be deleted. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 18:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete about a half-dozen additional sources in GScholar, all from the 1800s. It appears to be an out-of-date term form a petroleum derivative, some sort of naphta. I don't see why we need an article for an obsolete term. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• According to this 21st-century source this is just an old name for kerosene, so should be redirected. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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 keep and move to Spouse of the president of Singapore. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Singapore

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Singapore (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)

Not notable. As mentioned in the article, the "first lady/gentleman" is not a real title. The article's title refers to a title that neither exists in government or is widely used. Even if there is usage for the title, it does not have such significant usage that it would merit the term having its own WP page (WP:NOTADICTIONARY). The article is a directory of spouses of presidents and fails WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Singapore. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Spouse of the president of Singapore. Excellent flag, I see the problem and I think we have to rename the page since "First Lady" and "First Gentleman" are not official titles, even though the book title of Puan Noor Aishah's official biography bills her as Singapore's First Lady. The good news is, many reliable sources do discuss the "spouse of the president of Singapore" (and to some extent the limited ceremonial role), and there is plenty of precedent in pages named Spouse of the prime minister of Canada, List of spouses of prime ministers of Japan, and Spouse of the president of the Philippines (which interestingly is a role distinct from First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Spouse of the president of Singapore per the careful assessment of Cielquiparle. Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Cielquiparle makes excellent points above. Plus, it's not hard to find instances where official Singaporean government sources specifically cites the role of the wife/husband of the president or uses the term "First Lady" or gentleman in official context, including here by the national Ministry of Communications and Information [9]. However, I'd advocate to keep the original "First Ladies and Gentlemen" title as well. Scanlan (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Kartaniya Ghat Alligator Breeding Center

Kartaniya Ghat Alligator Breeding Center (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)

Can not find any sources that dictate the article's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: except for mirror/wiki sites, this is the only reliable source reference I could find when I typed in the article name in the Google search engine. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Diana Davis (news personality)

Diana Davis (news personality) (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)

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a mid-market local television journalist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for journalists. As always, local television journalists are not "inherently" notable just because a staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer technically verifies that they exist -- they have to be the subject of substantial coverage in sources other than their own employers. But three of the four footnotes here come from her own employer, and the only one that comes from another media outlet is just a human interest interview in which she's answering personal questions about her own perspective in Q&A format, which is not a GNG-assisting source as it represents her speaking about herself rather than being spoken or written about by other people.
There's a claim here that she won a regional Emmy for her journalism, which would be a legitimate notability claim if the article were referenced properly, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just directly affiliated primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Arkansas. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment unsure if the Emmy makes her notable. I had hope for this article [10] but I think it's a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I tried to find a citation for the Emmy and was not able to find any details/news articles for it. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete On air personality for a TV station serving a small metro area (~150K population). I can find no independent sources. Lamona (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this article was apparently created and edited solely by a banned user (sock) so it is eligible for WP:G5, but since the AfD was created I'll comment here. Even if the subject is notable it's probably easiest to just delete the article and have a valid user create it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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 keep. ✗plicit 14:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Barenis

Barenis (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)

While there is sourcing to show that there is a place by this name, there is no in-depth coverage. Was sent to draft for improvement, since it has zero current references. I say zero, because the single "reference" is to a map on which this place does not exist. Neither of the two external links mention the town either. Was actually approved at AfC without a single valid reference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Of course there is the possibility that this is a hoax? Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  But there is no source which shows that this is a populated recognized place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep must be improved this article not delete.115.186.135.10 (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Places are usually notable. Article needs improvement and for that it needs to be kept. Muneebll (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep gov.pk site listings; other .pk listings; shown on google maps with at least two schools and Masjid appear to be a valid inhabited place. KylieTastic (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Barely scrapes by to meet WP:GEOLAND, as per reasoning by KylieTastic. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

K. T. Thomas (pastor)

K. T. Thomas (pastor) (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)

Not notable, founder of Indian Pentecostal Church of God Northern Region, small and non notable subsidiary of Indian Pentecostal Church of God. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 14:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, India, and Delhi. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 14:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Lean Keep I'm finding limited sources in English but there seems to be more in Malayalam. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- As founder and general secretary of a denomination, he will have held a position similar to a bishop in denominations that have them. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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 redirect to Child advocacy with the option of merging into a future article on Child Advocacy Studies. The argument to draftify isn't strong when nobody has a stated intention of working on a draft; similarly, moving isn't a viable option when nobody has expressed willingness to reframe the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Bachelor of Arts in Child Advocacy

Bachelor of Arts in Child Advocacy (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)

Fails WP:Notability. No coverage of this bachelor's degree on Google, Google Scholar. Appears that only two universities in the world offers this course, and neither programmes have generated any coverage. I nominated this for deletion as a bundle with a few other pages a while ago, but the nomination failed as the primary article nominated was notable. I am now nominating this article by itself. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that as a stand alone article this is probably not notable. However, much has been written and published on Child Advocacy Studies (CAST acronym in literature) as an academic discipline and the training of child protection professionals in the United States. The following journal article has a decent literature review (which would provide sources to meet GNG) as well as a study of child protection training among medical professionals, social workers, etc. I think this content could be housed in an article on either CAST or more broadly on the training of child protection professionals. As such draftify or move to Child Advocacy Studies would be a feasible option. See Victor I. Vieth Betsy Goulet Michele Knox Jennifer Parker Lisa B. Johnson (2019). "Child Advocacy Studies (CAST): A National Movement to Improve the Undergraduate and Graduate Training of Child Protection Professionals" (PDF). Mitchell Hamline Law Review. 45 (4).. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist in hopes to get more input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to Child advocacy, since the suggested target is a worthy subject, but a redlink. IMHO, every reason to expect more institutions may offer such programs in the future. BusterD (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

2016–17 Młoda Liga squads

2016–17 Młoda Liga squads (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 see no reason why we need to have a squad listing for this particular season of the Młoda Liga, which is a domestic under-23 youth league. I can see no evidence that this topic has garnered significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. The only source used is the Młoda Liga official website which is clearly and obviously not an independent source. In terms of building an encyclopaedia, such lists serve little purpose, especially when the overwhelming majority of the people listed are non-notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Vaqueras de Bayamón squads

Vaqueras de Bayamón squads (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)

Lacks the significant third party coverage to establish notability. I am not convinced that an exhaustive list of past volleyball squads is an encyclopaedic topic. Article is currently a squad list for one season with one source that does not even verify the topic. I can't see how this would pass WP:GNG or WP:LISTN and, in its current form, it violates WP:V. If this article were not already over 11 years old, I would be looking to move it to draftspace for not being ready for mainspace. I oppose merging as the content is unsourced. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Lists of people, and Puerto Rico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Big Kidd (Rapper)

Big Kidd (Rapper) (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)

No pass of N:MUSIC. Creator will not accept draft space, so we're here. Star Mississippi 13:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Star Mississippi 13:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable: the sources cited don't amount to WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better; there is also no evidence of anything even approaching WP:MUSICBIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: maybe WP:TOOSOON, but this fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO at present. Express Digest is clearly a news aggregator site as most of its articles are copied from elsewhere on the internet, but the Big Kidd article appears to be self-submitted and full of grammatical errors, so this is not an RS. The only other source I can find is an interview in something called Sounds & Tracks magazine, which also appears a highly dubious publication, and is an interview which fails WP:PRIMARY anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete nothing found for this person. It looks like there was another person in the UK using this stage name; this artist has no sources whatsoever that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per DoubleGrazing, Richard3120, Oaktree. Cabrils (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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. ✗plicit 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

2016 Angola Women's Handball League squads

2016 Angola Women's Handball League squads (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)

Article violates WP:NOR and WP:V as the cited source, the sole reference for the article, does not even confirm the content. I am not able to find anything that does verify the content. More importantly, the topic doesn't seem to meet WP:LISTN as I am unable to find any evidence that there are independent sources discussing these sportspeople as a group. Searching the contents of this article only seems to take us to this Wikipedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Handball, and Angola. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete If some sources are found I've no objection to add it to the season article but not a separate article.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment - as far as I can tell the 2016 Angola Men's Handball League squads seems to be of about the same quality when it comes to contents and sources. Should both be deleted/kept? For myself I don't have a strong opinion but they should probably be handled the same way unless there is some deeper difference that I failed to find. BogLogs (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair comment. As a result, I have put that one in a separate discussion. Since this one has already started, it wouldn't seem right to bundle it so late in the discussion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete not covered in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01

Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01 (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)

Not notable article. It only has one secondary source and the rest are from the own publisher. Xexerss (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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 redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). czar 17:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

All Up in Your Mind

All Up in Your Mind (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)

No notability on its own, sources are only album reviews. Sricsi (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Not enough independent coverage about the song. So it fails WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect per nom Kirtap92 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Dani Alves (footballer, born 1993)

Dani Alves (footballer, born 1993) (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)

Unfortunately, very difficult to do an effective WP:BEFORE search because of the existence of Dani Alves and Danny (footballer). Using what little we know of this obscure Paris-born Portuguese footballer of this name, I can find nothing better than Mais Futebol and Diário de Notícias, both of which are just squad list mentions, confirming that he was on the bench in a game. This is far from the detailed coverage that WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC both require. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, France, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Christian Egba

Christian Egba (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)

Despite playing in professional games, I'm not seeing enough coverage for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The two current references are textbook examples of trivial mentions. I've searched in ProQuest, Google News, DDG and other places and can't find anything better than Spin, which is just another trivial mention. He is present in Playmaker Stats and some other databases but community consensus is that these don't justify inclusion, see SPORTBASIC for more details. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I can only find trivial coverage. Jogurney (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I figured there'd be something in Thai - but using "อตั้งคริสเตียน เอ็กบา" I get nothing. In fact, I get more with "egba Ayew site:.th" Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Could not find anything of significance. Agree with above, only trivial mentions. JojoMN1987 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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. RL0919 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

IDance

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/IDance
• Articles for deletion/IDance (2nd nomination)

IDance (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)

Lack of notability, ineligible for prod due to previous AFD (which is for something different of the same name), sole sources on article are press releases and 'bemanistyle.com', a music game fansite. I was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability to incorporate. Waxworker (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be WP:PROMO material as evidenced by the use of trademarks. Doesn't seem to have WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, couldn't find any sources with significant coverage. ProofRobust 16:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons above. Also for the record, The creator of this page has been confirmed to be a Sockmaster however they have only recieved a 1 month block. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a promo article with no reliable sources available. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Error (The Warning album)

Error (The Warning album) (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)

Of all the coverage on this list, only four actually mention this album. There's coverage and charting for singles for the albums but they don't name this album or even mention that it's coming. Of the four remaining sources, Live Metal is probably a blog (release announcements and news have no bylines, reviews only ever have the same name), uDiscoverMusic is owned by UMG which also owns both record labels this was released by and shouldn't be used because of that conflict of interest, and the Review Geek and Prelude Press aren't notable publications. Only additional coverage I can find is from the Honey Pop, though perhaps more exists in Spanish-language sources. QuietHere (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mexico. QuietHere (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I created the article so I will abstain from voting for now. But when the nominator mentioned sources that do not name the album specifically, he/she missed the point that several of this album's songs were previously released as singles or on an earlier EP called Mayday, and the sources that don't show the title Error via a brief word search generally do mention those previous releases. Also, per WP:BEFORE (Section D), if a nominator thinks that there may or may not be sources in a different language, then a recommendation to delete must be informed by evidence that they don't exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. If those previously released singles/tracks from Mayday are getting coverage that doesn't mention this album then that doesn't confer notability onto this album.
  2. When I say "perhaps more exists", what I mean is I looked in my usual spots in what I believe was a thorough BEFORE search, but that perhaps I'm not being served all possible results because of the difference in language and I encourage anyone else to double-check that in particular in their own searches. And that's not necessarily to say that I'm definitely missing out on Spanish sources, I just don't know whether I am or not. Best to be thorough.
  3. Not a response to you Doomsdayer, just that I realise I forgot to say above that I support a redirect to The_Warning_(band)#With_Lava_Records_(2020–present) rather than outright deleting.

  QuietHere (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not necessary for e very single source in an article to prove that the subject is notable. Some can be used to verify background details. Anyway, I created this article shortly after the album was released and it had gotten some buzz, then that buzz didn't seem to get much further, though this just came in: [11]. I can wait for someone to find reviews that may be out there, and if not we gotta do what we gotta do. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no harm in keeping this article, could help the band’s exposure Golden409bus (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

So I don't think this specific type of argument is listed on Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions (or at least I can't find it) but it definitely should be. Wikipedia isn't here to bring exposure to non-notable subjects. If there isn't already coverage for the subject in question that would justify giving it its own article then we can't just have one anyway on the off-chance that a publication or two sees it and that's somehow what makes them decide they need to cover it. Even assuming that would ever happen (and if you think it will, I can't imagine why), it still goes against basic WP policy. Oh, and there is WP:NOHARM which at least covers the first half of your point, so there's that. QuietHere (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Weak keep - The only source that confers any notability is the album's placing in the Loudwire Top 50 for 2022 - assuming that publication is a reliable source. The album just about satisfies point 1 of WP:NALBUM but none of the others. How independent are The Prelude Press and ReviewGeek reviews? Likely promotional, so I don't think they help establish notability. So the question is, does the Loudwire Top 50 placing convey significant reliable, independent coverage? I don't think so. However, it would be apt to note the Loudwire achievement alongside the album on the band's Wikipedia article. Rupples (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional points: Can significant coverage be attained from only one source? WP:WHYN talks about reliable sources so I'd expect wider coverage for this album to justify a standalone page. Secondly, addressing the point made by User:doomsdayer520 if a nominator thinks that there may or may not be sources in a different language, then a recommendation to delete must be informed by evidence that they don't exist. No. The AfD nomination is based on the article as it stands. The nominator has searched for additional sources, found one, but that also doesn't look particularly reliable. Anyone opposing the deletion has the opportunity to find better sources, add them to the article, point out the changes in this discussion and argue for a reassessment. Also, if one disagrees that the sources cited are unreliable, opposing evidence/arguments can be put forward. If convincing, opinion may change. Rupples (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. The sources from Live Metal, BandedPR, Review Geek and Prelude Press are reliable and in-depth IMV. I'd also include Billboard charting and being talked about in the Loudwire list. The rest are either from primary sources or interviews or nothing about the album. SBKSPP (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I've taken a look at the websites hosting the cited reviews. I don't see Prelude Press as a reliable, independent source. Other album reviews I've read there all tend to be written in the most positive flowery prose. I was unable to find a critical negative review. The site's contact page rather backs this up - Interested in working together? Want us to share your music? However, some Review Geek reviews include critical comments, so does seem more reliable and independent. For that reason, I'm changing my opinion as the article just about satisfies WP:NALBUM by having two reliable, independent sources. Rupples (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, Prelude Press houses press releases and is not a reliable source. I don't see enough coverage to justify an article at this time. —VersaceSpace (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I am continuing to abstain from voting, but will point out that when some sources in an article are appropriate, then the inappropriate ones can be removed as part of the regular editing process. Also, per WP:ATD the usual process for an album article is to redirect to the band, if the ultimate decision is non-notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I don't see strong opinions here for either Keeping or Deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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 no consensus. I see no other possible closure here. Participants are all over the map, Delete, Rename, Keep, Redirect, Merge, Reorient, Turn it into a DAB? There is no consensus here with all of these different suggestions. I hope this discussion doesn't die with this AFD closure and you move it to the article talk page where interested editors can take BOLD action with this article and come up with a mutual proposal you can carry out. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Insectoid

Insectoid (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)

More of a WP:DICTDEF than anything; many of the sources used only briefly mentioned the term and most of the article spends its time discussing trivial pop culture references and aliens. That said, insectoid robots are discussed with some detail in multiple sources, so that might be a valid article, but again, this is definitely not. An anonymous username, not my real name 07:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Has what appears to be RS'ed commentary. Not seeing why trimming excessive trivia would not work to improve this. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  In that case, should it be moved to insectoid robots? An anonymous username, not my real name 22:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, 'insectoid' is an adjective that you've noted is used in multiple contexts. Why should it just cover one? Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Articles should be about a single context, not multiples per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and titles shouldn't be adjectives at all, per WP:ADJECTIVE. SpinningSpark 13:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking more on this, you're right. Disambiguate to different uses of the term in the various contexts. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a terrible WP:SYNTH of robotics, UFOlogy, and science fiction. Wikipedia articles should be about a single subject, not a dictionary plus entry per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Much of the sourcing for the "Ufology" section is extremely dodgy fringe "research", not WP:RS as claimed by Jclemens. The "Other media" section is basically a cruft list of fiction with insectiod creatures with no source giving an overall description of insectoids in fiction, nor is there any encyclopaedic commentary on it in the article. I agree that Insectoid robot might make an article, but this isn't it – there are only two sentences in that section. SpinningSpark 23:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've amended my comment accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOTDICT. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per SpinningSpark. We don't have articles for just any adjective that wanders down the pike. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
• Split and disambiguate I think there are enough secondary sources to establish notablity for both the subjects of Insectoid robot and Insectoid alien. After the split this should be a disambiguation page referring to both + Insect + Wiktionary:insectoid. Daranios (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Your proposal runs smack dab into WP:partial title matches, i.e. what dab pages are supposed to exclude. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't think that guideline is ideal for our subject here, but well, split only then. See also sections might be the next-best replacement to disambiguation page to help with navigation. Daranios (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Updating my opinion to keep, slightly rephrase and improve, possibly rename, and split out Insectoid robot as another notable topic. I was originally swayed by Spinningspark's reference to WP:ADJECTIVE, but now I've realized that "insectoid" is also a substantive, used in science fiction as a synonym for "Insectoid alien". Which of those is the more WP:COMMONNAME can be decided outside the deletion discussion. As I said, I think that topic is notable, and even if the current article needs a lot of improvement, that can be accomplished through normal editing while preserving some of the current content. The technology section then no longer falls into the purview of this topic, but should be preserved and expanded in a separate article, or possibly combined with Hexapod (robotics). Daranios (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• the article is not merely a dictionary definition - the article and its sources are talking about the context and the ways that insectoid creatures impact / are used by science fiction creators in multiple ways, and as this book by the University of Minnesota Press indicates "the rise of the science fiction genre of weird, often enormously sized insectiod creatures is to be noted, at times also part of the popular discourse, for example , a New York Times story from 1880 ..." it has been a subject of interest for a LONG period of time. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Insect_Media/cLbYMCjAXY8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=insectoid . if articles cannot be adjectives ( green ) , then a rename to something super clumsy like insectoid creatures in science fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.96 (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure what your point is; it appears you trailed off mid-sentence. Are you saying that we shouldn't use the most accurate title because it's "super clumsy"? Colors are a far more complex topic which warrant a class of their own — your comparison is flawed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it's not our job to create collections of all the possible meanings of every word (except, within reason, on disambiguation pages). We have separate articles on a great many similarly named but vastly different topics, so why should this be any different? An anonymous username, not my real name 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The entry in BRAVE NEW WORDS is sadly just limited to a dictionary comment that it's an adjective to insect-like. The term does appear to be used in passing in sf encyclopedias, some cited in the text, but not all, and none provides any WP:SIGCOV meeting discussion of this concept. As such, much of what is in the article seems WP:OR. My BEFORE did find one promising source, an academic article on "Humans, insectoid aliens, and the creation of ecophobia in science fiction", unfortunately I falied at finding a copy of this that I could access. And in books, I also found [12], which seems to be a treatment of this concept going on for likely 3+ pages (sadly, again my view is limited). Both of them seem to strongly suggest this topic meets WP:SIGCOV and and can be rescued. From the former, "The motif of the insect is widely used in the media and in popular culture.... is especially obvious in the representation of the abject human/insect hybrids that form the most common enemy in popular culture media" and from the latter: "Bugs or bug-like shapes are a common trope... 'insectoid' has become auch a ubiquitous way of representing alien life that it has became almost a cliche". Overall, I have concerns much of the present article is ORish and merits WP:TNT, but the "Other media" section has potential; the topic can likely be stubbed and expanded with the reliable sources found here (or the few present in the article already). Ping User:XOR'easter, UserTompaDompa, User:UncleG who have a good record of rewriting this (and so do I, I just don't know if I'll have time or will to tackle this before this AfD concludes, plus I am not very fond of creepy crawlies). Also ping User:Jclemens and User:Daranios, I am mildly suprised I am more "keepy" here then you. (Although it is possible we may need some disambig between insectioids in fiction and the insectoid robots in real-life engineering, I am not sure if the ufology section is reliably sourced and where it could be merged if anywhere). PS. Final thought: the concept of insects in fiction/insects in popular culture is likely a notable one, and I'll note we have articles (some of which are as usual in poor shape) on Insects in literature, List of films featuring insects, Parasites in fiction, Arthropods in film, as well as Parasitoid#In_science_fiction - there is probably a need for some merger/renaming here. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  PS. I messed up pings for User:TompaDompa and User:Uncle G. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Engineering. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting here though the majority of participating editors are advocating Delete, there are some opinions being argued here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. @Piotrus: I'm surprised to see you at keep here, we are more often the other way round at AFD. I agree that Insectoids in science fiction may have legs, but that doesn't stop the current page being a WP:COATRACK of disparate meanings. I can go along with moving to a new title and removing the irrelevant stuff. Possibly also the creation of insectoid robot which may also be notable. I'm going to request the sources you found at the library. Email me if you want them copied to you. SpinningSpark 10:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Email sent. I am pretty sure "Insectoids in science fiction" can be salvaged from this mess. Would be nice if folks interested in robotics and ufology could chime in on these other aspects. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Spinningspark and Piotrus: In case you like to get going on Insectoid robot, I wanted to point to Hexapod (robotics), which I didn't realize existed before. Depending on what you find in sources, there may be enough overlap to only expand that article, or enough on bioinspiration with regard to behaviour, flight ability and the like to warrant a separate one. Daranios (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  I found academic sources discussing the use of insect intelligence, vision, and strategies in robots. Thanks for finding that article, but the topic clearly goes well beyond insect locomotion. SpinningSpark 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think Insectoids in science fiction (or some title along those lines) is salvageable. "Insect monsters in movies are well known to any serious addict of science fiction," as Cherry (2012) points out, with examples to back up the point. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• New position. Move to Insectoids in science fiction. Cut out the "Technology" section into a new article insectoid robot. Remove the "Ufology" section altogether – from what I can see, an article on this would heavily rely on fringe sources. There will be no need for a dab page, robots are not referred to as insectoids except adjectively, whereas SF creatures are sometimes called that. SpinningSpark 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Daranios makes an interesting poing - isn't insectoid robot topic already covered under Hexapod (robotics)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  See my reply to Daranios, hexapod robots are only part of the topic. It's hard to see how this, for instance, could be part of the hexapod article. Or this or this. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Spinningspark True, but then I don't think that insect navigation or insect vision is really related to the concept of insectoid robot; as far as I know those kind of solutions can be used in robots that don't look anything like insects. That said, yes, not all insects are hexapods. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  ...not all insects are hexapods. They're not? I thought that was pretty much the definition. See Insect#Definition. SpinningSpark 17:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Spinningspark Blerp. Thanks for reminding me the difference between insects and anthropods. But in that case, I think my original article - about merging the robot part to hexapod (robotics) article - makes sense. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  If you're going to put up opposition to the idea that programming insect intelligence into a robot does not amount to an insectoid robot AND sources using the term insectoid for this cannot be found then fine, just deal with it with a hatnote to hexapod. I was planning to write something from the sources available but I'm not going to do it in the teeth of opposition. SpinningSpark 12:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Spinningspark By no means I intend to stop you from writing stuff. I am just staying that the two topics seem related. But if you want to stub insectoid robot instead, be my guest. A merge can be considered at some point, no urgency. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Move to Insectoid alien (without leaving a redirect, or with a soft redirect to Wiktionary) and remove the technology part so it's no longer WP:SYNTH. This article is clearly misnamed; and is too vaguely named. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • That would remove the concept-level WP:SYNTH, but the content-level WP:SYNTH would remain. TompaDompa (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

    In that case I have to amend my !vote to move to insectoid alien without a redirect and then merge with Extraterrestrials in fiction. This is unlikely to be a viable article in its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I was pinged by Piotrus above. This article is an absolute mess, doing precisely what WP:NOTDICTIONARY tells us not to do (In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by.). It may be the case that we should have articles called insectoid robot and insectoid alien (currently a redirect), but those should obviously be separate articles, and it might be a better idea to cover those topics in other articles—I'm inclined to think it would be better to cover different types of aliens in the article Extraterrestrials in fiction rather than having a bunch of different articles for different kinds of depictions, for instance. Looking at the sources in the "Other media" section, it turns out it's just a WP:CARGO-style collection of examples gathered from sources that do not cover the overarching topic and strung together by the application of WP:SYNTHESIS. It may look like proper content, but it's a TV Tropes-style list in prose form. This content does not constitute a proper basis for a hypothetical insectoid alien article (or indeed, section). It would probably be better to start over from scratch, using sources that actually cover the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Mikey Seems 2 Funny

Mikey Seems 2 Funny (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)

Tiktokker BLP with lots of references, but they seem to be mostly churnalism or puff-pieces. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom, most sources appear puffy, interviews and the like. Nothing at length or very detailed about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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. ✗plicit 14:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

K Sendhil Naathan

K Sendhil Naathan (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)

Businessperson BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks detailed coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete absolutely nothing here to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: Such coverage as there is concerns the subject in his role working at TANFAC Industries so does little beyond providing that basic verification. Fails WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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 merge to Dark matter#In popular culture. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Dark matter in fiction

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dark matter in fiction
• Articles for deletion/Dark matter in fiction (2nd nomination)

Dark matter in fiction (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)

90% of the article is the usual "list of media that mention the term dark matter", that fails WP:LISTN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPC. The lead suggests that this could be rescued into a prose article, but all the mentions are checked seem to fail WP:SIGCOV. I checked the usual science-fiction encyclopedias and such, and they don't discuss this with the singular exception of two paragraphs in Stableford's Science fact and science fiction, in his chapter on "matter". Since I don't think that's enough to warrant a stand-alone article, but not a total mess (the lead is ok-ish), thinking about a good WP:PRESERVE/WP:ATD solution, I'd like to recommend merging the lead to Dark_matter#In_popular_culture (a tiny, currently unreferenced section), and redirecting this article there, leaving the WP:NOTTVTROPES-list hidden in the redirect's history. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep and trim, as I tried to do so back in 2009, or Merge per nom. Many of these clearly just use the name for a concept unrelated to the real-world astrophysics model. Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dark_matter#In_popular_culture per nom. Fails WP:LISTN due to the lack of multiple instances of SIGCOV in reliable sources of the article subject as a group. This is just an indiscriminate list of mentions of dark matter in fiction and as such is pure WP:TRIVIA. Nothing to preserve really except the link.

Piotrus - It really needs to be emphasised that edit histories are not intended as a form of shadow database. and WP:PRESERVE/WP:ATD says nothing about using it as such. Wikipedia is not a database. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Even in academic writing, the phrase "dark matter" is often used metaphorically, as a poetic way to express "things unseen" [13]. This has a tendency to clutter up search results... There's probably enough secondary sourcing to say something about "Dust" in His Dark Materials, and the plot arc of Baxter's Xeelee sequence. It might be best to write a short, referenced section at Dark matter#In popular culture (which could be split off in the event that it grows too big). I don't have strong feelings about whether we need a separate page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  The list did remind me about the X-Files episode "Soft Light", which led me to this review that mentions just how goofy its take on dark matter was. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Merge to Dark matter#In popular culture as proposed. While I don't think there is any of the actual text currently in this list that would need to be moved over, a couple of the books being cited in the opening few sentences look like they would be decent enough sources to add as citations to the currently un-sourced target section. As mentioned by XOR'easter, if that section ever actually becomes too large with well sourced prose material, it can be spun back out into a separate topic, but that does not look to be the case currently. Rorshacma (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Fails WP:LISTN as there is no WP:SIGCOV about this subject as a group. Most of this list of examples is WP:OR based on editors observation of primary sources. There is nothing that reliably verifies that these are examples of the same scientific phenomenon. Jontesta (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dark_matter#In_popular_culture as a user above said, it is not WP:LIST Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to Dark matter#In popular culture, preserving useful sources and sourced sections, seems fine to me. Daranios (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to dark matter without the WP:NOTTVTROPES list, per nom. Many of these aren't related to the real-world astrophysics concept. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect and very selectively merge to Dark matter#In popular culture, as there are multiple examples that are or can easily be supported by secondary sources, but not extensive discussion of the concept as a whole. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Bootcut Balaraju

Bootcut Balaraju (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)

Non-notable unreleased film. Sources do not show notability. This user is creating all films related to Syed Sohel even the unnotable ones. The following articles should be deleted for the same reason:

• Mister Pregnant
• Lucky Lakshman
• Guntur Mirchi (web series)
• Cine Mahal
• Konapuram Lo Jarigina Katha
• The Bells (2015 film)

All of the following do not have reliable sources. The last four, though already released, do not have two reliable reviews. The only article worth saving is Cine Mahal if Great Telangana is deemed notable. DareshMohan (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:B3:FE70:FCB8:F074:DED0:D201 (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:B3:FE70:FCB8:F074:DED0:D201 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete all Low profile films with little to no coverage from reliable sources. I could not find anything worthwhile in a WP:BEFORE for released films both in Telugu and English. Unreleased films are out of question. The possibility of COI also cannot be ruled out since all these entries have the same lead actor! -- Ab207 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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 no consensus. There has been no clear direction throughout this AFD discussion, participants don't seem to know what they want done. No penalty on future AFD discussions but please have a concrete proposal for what you want to happen with an article, closers can't brainstorm on their own solutions, that's when we get taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review for super voting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Specialty channel

Specialty channel (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)

This article does not meet WP:GNG, and checks in WP:BEFORE did not help.

While trying to find sources for 'specialty channel', these are the types of content that I found:

• A presentation on Prezi about specialty channels. Prezi is not a reliable source because of WP:UGC.
• Many articles and books where they do not have a significant coverage of 'specialty channels'.
• Websites promoting Specialty Channel Packs on DISH.
• Many articles where 'specialty channels' are mentioned but it has nothing to do with television.
• Directories of specialty channels in Canada.
• A Fandom article, that is not reliable once again because of WP:UGC.
• Many other websites and webpages that are not really sources for an encyclopedia.
• Redirect perhaps to a cable television article. These channels are things that exist, but I don't see notability unless we're discussing the subscription TV world. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A search result for 'specialty channels' on Google only returned 77,100 results.

The lack of any reliable and significant sources for the topic 'specialty channels' leads to this topic not being notable, and therefore cannot merit for a Wikipedia article.

This article also fails at WP:V and WP:NOR. The claims shown in the article are vague and have no citations. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Reduce to known Canadian definition and redirect to specialty service The CRTC version is legally defined and easily meets WP:N. The other American-centric one is an anachronism in the 2020s, where only HGTV, Food Network and Cooking Channel actually meet their remit and the rest who don't restrict to one genre air anything at any time, and just WP:SYNTH. Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The claim "about 65% of today's satellite channels are specialty channels" cannot pass WP:V, because when I tried to search this claim, I found no sources that prove it. A claim like this should have a date (e.g. 2022) and a country/region (e.g. Canada) that defines when and where this statement is true, but in this case, there isn't any. EJPPhilippines (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for possible redirect suggestions. An AFD closer can only weigh options that are presented, not come up with our original ideas or edit the article ourselves.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: pro-tip for AfD nominators – if you find yourself putting together a list of entire categories of sources in proposing the deletion of an article, it's probably a good idea to step back and reconsider whether that potential AfD is actually justified. Some further comments about the article:
  • A "specialty channel" is a longstanding, fundamental concept in the TV industry (certainly for as long as cable TV has existed and continues to exist), and importantly there is much more to be said about it than a mere dictionary definition (which is often the reason for deleting this type of article) – even a simple list of channels is more than that already.
  • In my view this AfD is not even procedurally appropriate, because this page should only be nominated together with generalist channel. This isn't a case of WP:OSE, but nominating A and not not-A – each page hardly makes sense without the other.
  • As far as I am aware there is no legal definition of a "specialty channel" in Canada, and "specialty service" is itself a redirect so it is hard to understand why it was proposed as a redirect target here. There are similar CRTC definitions which include "service", particularly the current term "discretionary service" and its "category" predecessors, but the "specialty" term refers to channel genres (the new "discretionary" term in Canada is actually the result of the CRTC dropping genre protection so it's almost the opposite). Most importantly though, the fact that a somewhat-similar term is officially defined in a particular country is not a good reason to drop all information about the widespread (or even formerly widespread) usage of the term in other countries.
  • The fact that an article subject is an "anachronism" (which is not correct here anyhow, as those channels often continue to market themselves as specialty brands even if their content has shifted) is not relevant to a deletion discussion per WP:NTEMP. Modernponderer (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more. The recommendation to redirect this page to Specialty service is not a workable solution as that is a page that is just a redirect to this one, Specialty channel. Unless there is a concrete recommendation that can be considered, I'm doing a procedural close with this discussion as no outcome has been put forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• I'm Withdrawing my vote per WP:TRAINWRECK; the nom didn't even address my rationale at all in any understandable or reasonable manner, and Modernponderer rolling in with a "pro tip" insulting my rationale wholesale (and having already TRAINWRECKed the BBC Kids nom by saying it was inexplicably a hoax, forcing after-AfD intervention) didn't help one bit. I did mean move this page to "specialty channel" originally and cut the unsourced information, but MP has a constant want to turn any AfD they're involved with into a battleground, blank out any user talk page discussion without archiving, and I have no want to even engage them further here. MP is advised not to argue this rationale (especially as I discovered they disagreed with my removal of their image on an article three months after deletion sarcastically without notification), here or on my talk page. Nate • (chatter) 09:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Note for other editors: the above "!vote" includes a number of false WP:PERSONALATTACKS directed against me, which I have been forced to address at another user's talk page but will not cover here as AfD is not the place for this type of discussion (but not because of the "advice" above to essentially just shut up and take it). Modernponderer (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment I am allowed to comment about your editing history and talk page behavior (which is open for anyone to see if they look at your contributions), and in no way was there a personal attack within. And as for edits you disagree with in article space, you're always free to revert me or upload the image anew if you disagree with said reversion. The image at Télétoon was removed by me as duplicative of other images in the article to fit our WP:FAIRUSE guidelines outside two words and was an English-language logo with English-language text, which is inappropriate to put into a French-Canadian article subject. This might be en.wiki but consideration to an article subject's native language is paramount.. Nate • (chatter) 02:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Chemistry (2013 film)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chemistry (2013 film)
• Articles for deletion/Chemistry (2013 film) (2nd nomination)

Chemistry (2013 film) (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)

Could not find any reliable sources/reviews. The previous AfD was right after the film released and still there are no reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing found in a search to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Didn't find any coverage of this particular film in either English or Telugu. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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 merge to A-Next#Coal Tiger. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Coal Tiger

Coal Tiger (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)

Minor comic book character, reception limited to two listicles. I've PRODDED this with "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". User:BOZ removed prod suggesting a merge to A-Next, where he is briefly mention, but nobody but us commented at Talk:A-Next, so there is no strong support for merge. Worse, it appears that the name was used for several comic book characters. Our article for example is about T'Chaka II using it, while the only source we have that meets WP:SIGCOV about him (but otherwise seems like an unreliable fanpage), [14], is about T'Challa. Maybe a disambig page would be needed, but if none of his incarnations meet GNG, I am not sure if even that is justified. In either case, I am still not seeing what could be merged to where, given all we have is a plot summary and two low quality listicles ("10 Most Powerful Alternate Versions Of Black Panther", "15 Most Powerful Variants Of Black Panther In Marvel Comics"etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to A-Next as I previous suggested. BOZ (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to his section at A-Next. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to A-Next#Coal Tiger - While there are other characters or references to characters using the name, the A-Next version does appear to be the most prominent (comparatively at least. He's not a particularly prominent character in general). Being mentioned in low-quality listicles is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • If it has to come to the merge outcome, send their information to the List of DC Comics characters: C page. That is what I am asking from the closer of this AFD debate. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep or merge as WP:ATD. I see sources that talk about this character. If people disagree there is still enough to WP:PRESERVE this somewhere. Archrogue (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Selective Merge to A-Next#Coal Tiger, I can find nothing that would indicate this character passes GNG, but slightly more context should be added to the article on the team about them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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 redirect to Ansible. Daniel (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ultrawave

Ultrawave (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)

Unreferenced plot summary in the poor WP:IPC-violating style (list of media that mention the term ultrawave). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Declined PROD. Per short discussion on talk, a redirect to Ansible seems like the best WP:PRESERVE option (ping User:TompaDompa), but since the prod decliner (User:Explicit) asked for WP:AFD, here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to the related term Ansible, as I suggested on the talk page. I have added a brief mention of this term there. TompaDompa (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to ansible as the apparent term for it before "ansible" was coined, making it relevant for the latter term's history. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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 no consensus. Technicality there was a plurality in favour of incubating it in draftspace, but as the author as indicated that they would not work on it further there, that would serve no purpose. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

James Wilt

James Wilt (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)

WP:BLP of a journalist and author, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists and writers. Nine of the 14 footnotes here are not support for notability at all -- five staff directories on the self-published websites of his own past or present employers, two Q&A interviews from podcasts in which he's the speaker and not the subject being spoken about, one piece of his own bylined writing, one glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that isn't about him, and one piece of purely tangential verification of a stray fact that completely fails to even namecheck him in conjunction with it at all. And while the other five footnotes are actually third-party reviews of his books, they all come from minor special-interest magazines that aren't widely distributed or read -- so they'd be acceptable for use if the other nine sources were better than they are, but they don't represent enough coverage to secure passage of GNG on their own if the article is otherwise relying entirely on bad sources.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more coverage about him than this shows. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

So I almost never write bios, and only wrote this one to remove a redlink from an article I'm working on. So I may well not be familliar with the requirements here (though I did look them up first). I'll go through and explain what I was thinking, and trust I will be told where I'm wrong.

Most of the sources obviously don't establish notability. The staff-directory sources were used only to list publications he had written for (and that he has a journalism degree). While the sources obviously aren't RS, the statements seemed like non-controversial claims of the sort for which policy allows non-independent sources. The Q&As are both rather popourris of topics; they seemed to me to be more about interviewing him than discussing a specific subject, but I cited them only for the fact he's been involved in radio. The glancing mention of him was about the piece of his own writing (which also I cited just because it seemed a useful link to supply the reader with). Obviously neither establishes notability, though both are RS about the event in question, as is the third source that doesn't mention him. Is in necessary that every source in a bio, even the ones for background info or context, mention the human subject of the article?

When I looked up the notability requirements at WP:Author I read that a person is notable if:

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"

I took this to mean that the existence of multiple RS reviews of books that someone has authored establishes notability of the author. Looking again, I realize that the grammar means that "significant or well-known" is a seperate critereon, but no explicit test for meeting it is given.

I don't recognise the publications which reviewed the books, and many seem to be regional Canadian publications. So they may well be "minor special-interest magazines that aren't widely distributed or read". I was not aware that this matters, if they meet the RS criteria. If it does matter, can this be made explicit in the notability criteria, so I can know for sure if someone is notable before writing a bio about them? HLHJ (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Would adding these sources be enough to establish notability?

Laforest, J. (2021). Review of [James Wilt, Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars?

Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber, and Elon Musk (Toronto: Between the

Lines Press 2020)]. Labour/Le Travail, 87, 203–205.

https://doi.org/10.1353/llt.2021.0012

https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/llt/2021-v87-llt06143/1078658ar.pdf

Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars: Walking dreams of public transit

by Adya Afanou, April 9, 2020

The Charity Report

https://www.thecharityreport.com/literary-circle/walking-dreams-of-public-transit/

Big Alcohol vs. Working Class Joy / James Wilt

2022-09-14

(an interview with the author about his book)

This Is Hell! (broadcast in Chicago on WNUR-FM, thrice weekly[15])

https://player.fm/series/this-is-hell-83405/big-alcohol-vs-working-class-joy-james-wilt

Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber and Elon Musk

August 4, 2020 - 4:00pm PDT Toronto

"For the Word on the Street festival's fourth City Imagines panel, EFF Special Advisor Cory Doctorow speaks with James Wilt, author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Cars? Public Transit in the Age of Google, Uber, and Elon Musk."

https://www.eff.org/ja/event/public-transit-age-google-uber-and-elon-musk

HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The Labour/Le Travail journal would be a start, but not in and of itself enough; none of the others help at all, as The Charity Report is not a GNG-worthy media outlet, Q&A interviews in which the topic is speaking about himself in the first person don't help to establish notability, and mere event calendar listings don't help to establish notability.

To help establish notability, a source has to represent third-party analysis and coverage in which James Wilt is the subject being spoken about and analyzed by other people, and notability cannot be established by sources in which he's doing the speaking or sources that just mention his name without substantive analytical content about him (unless said source is verifying that he's been nominated for a major WP:AUTHOR-passing literary award, but that's not in play here.) And we have some flexibility about what kind of sources can be used — like I said, the reviews present in the article now would be fine for use if the other sources were better than they are — but there still needs to be at least some evidence of coverage about him in more prominent media sources, such as daily newspapers or the news divisions of Canada's main television networks. And that has to be coverage about him, not pieces bylined by him, so the fact that he had a byline in The Globe and Mail doesn't help.

The mere fact that his name was present as a red link in another article, further, is not in and of itself a basis for notability — since anybody can wikilink any name or word in any article at any time without regard to whether that represents a topic that would actually pass our inclusion criteria or not, sometimes the most appropriate response to a red link is unlinking it rather than starting a new article. Just because his name appears in another article is not an automatic exemption from his still having to pass Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing rules. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I thought interviews by third-party new outlets about someone's book or the topic of someone's would probably count a lower than reviews, though they seem to be the form of book review most common on radio and television.

How do I identify a "GNG-worthy media outlet"? Are these limited to "daily newspapers or the news divisions of Canada's main television networks"?

Would another review or two like the Le Travail one establish notability? Or are you saying that no number of reviews of an author's books will make an author notable unless people also write about the author, not just the author's books? WP:author strongly gave me the opposite impression. I'd really like a clear understanding of what the rules are.

I am quite clear that neither the existance of a redlink, nor a non-third-party source used to cite non-controversial content, establishes notability. That isn't specific to bios. It's pretty obvious that a work by him isn't a third-party source for information about him, too. Apologies for taking so much of your time. HLHJ (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added some more sources to the article, including one with a different political perspective for once. They are a bit monotonous.

On reflection, I think perhaps wp:author's liberal notability standard makes sense; if an author required more than multiple RS reviews of their books to be notable, then we would have a situation in which the author is not notable and the books are, which seems silly and in this case would simply split the article in two and duplicate a small amount of background on the author.

The "News journalism" section still doesn't contain independent, notablity-establishing sources, with the arguable exception of the radio interviews, but the content is also fairly non-controversial, basically characterizing the subject as a journalist; I added it because the article otherwise lacked this fairly basic info. Ignoring that section, the remaining sources (nine book reviews, mostly from smaller leftist publications) seem to me to establish notability.

If I'm wrong, I would very much appreciate corection in enough detail to propose a revision of the WP:author and WP:GNG guidelines to provide better guidance. I've been editing for over a decade and a half, and I don't care deeply about the article, so if I can misunderstand the documentation, a less-experienced editor has no chance, and having an article deleted is a really bad experience for a new editor. HLHJ (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Draftify. This article was less than 40 hours old when nommed for deletion. Perhaps page creator should have kept this in draftspace before publishing, but IMHO there's marginally enough RS applied and available to sustain a BLP on this relatively young journalist subject. I'm seeing a number of reviews in RS for both works. Let's draftify and give this longtime good faith contributor a chance to improve the work instead of deleting. No offense to nominator, but I might have talked with the page creator before nominating a freshly published work from a long time wikipedian. BusterD (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
• Draftify I am willing to let the article's starter see if they can add RS. No harm and a draft is cheap. Bruxton (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the kind words and helpfulness. To be honest, I'm not that concerned with the fate of this minor article; I'm far more concerned with the WP:Author notability requirements. In some ways I'm actually glad it was nommed promptly, since I wasn't planning on putting more work into it, and have added more RS as a result of the nom. While I realize there are practical considerations, personally I'm fine with being treated with less caution than a new editor with no record of good faith, as I have the knowledge to do better with less guidance and the self-confidence to get the guidance I need.

I judged the subject to be notable, or I wouldn't have wasted my time writing it, and Bearcat, with far more relevant experience, judged it non-notable. I read through some of the other deletion discussions and found articles on authors of much more notable works (works that won awards), which still got deleted because the sources were about the works, not the creator. So it seems Bearcat's view has support from precedent in deletion discussions. But of course I didn't look up precendent when deciding whether to write the article; I looked up the subject-specific notability guidelines. The two don't obviously match, and they should ideally match so clearly than any outraged newbie will, however grudgingly, agree that they match. Please chime in with any options I'm missing, but I think the choices are:

1. A sole creator of notable works is not automatically notable, and such articles should be spilt into an article for each work, or renamed "Works by X", or whatever the sources do.
2. A sole creator of notable works is automatically notable, and if they have created more than one notable work and all our content on their works fits comfortably in a single article, it is permissible or preferable, but not mandatory, to have it in one article under the creator's name.

In this case, the first option splits this article in two, and the second leaves it in its current state. For authors with more notable works, option one might split an article into three or more parts. There are cases where the second option might leave us with full-length articles on some of an author's works, and stub-length content on the remaining works, with the stub-bits and summaries of the major works being sections in a single author article. What would be preferable? How would we best edit WP:author to clarify? Should we post to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) andor WT:WPBIO for more opinions? HLHJ (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - with the Labour/Le Travail review and the Quill and Quire review, that's enough to establish GNG. No need to send back to draft, but some improvement wouldn't hurt (per WP:DEL-CONTENT. Nfitz (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

4554

4554 (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)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Only one review cited, two are needed. DareshMohan (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Frishay

Frishay (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)

Extremely minor company of 16 people that obviously fails WP:NCORP. The refs are profiles/databases, its own website/partners, and minor comparisons in non-RS sites, e.g., the third ref is apparently has 770K creators and states that We strive to build a platform that serves its Creators before anyone else, with no editorial policies, thus it appears to be a questionable user-generated site. All of those obviously fail WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions and databases but nothing that is SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, whose characterization I find complete and accurate. Ovinus (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Vattakara

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Vattakara (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Vattakara (film)

Vattakara (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)

Only one review when two is needed. Both sources are not SIGCOV. No other sources exist except ones in the article. Any online reviews would be under the title வட்டகரா விமர்சனம் (Vattakara review) but all of the ones on the internet are unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 00:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Previous versions were referenced with highly questionable non-RS sources, that are purely routine announcements. Of the current first two references, ref 1 is an announcement, it is long with five paragraphs, but four of the paragraphs are interview-like quotation from the director. Otherwise, there is little direct, in-depth independent commentary. Ref 2 has seven sentences, routinely listing the cast and provides one quote from the director, being non-SIGCOV. Otherwise, ref 3 is a single review insufficient to single-handedly meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, though if more reviews are found please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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.