Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Twitter Files Investigation

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Arugia has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? The public doesn't have the right to comment? Oh, I get it, only the few get to decide what is or is not relevant. Go ahead, delete it and I promise you the Wikipedia will come to regret that decision. You want to remain relevant? Don't censor it. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anticipated future events do not mean that a given topic currently meets criteria for inclusion (WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NRV). Wikipedia is also not a soapbox, so the idea the article is "crucial to [Wikipedia's] survival" is not a reason for its inclusion either. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe user Arugia was making the point that if Wikipedia comes down on the side of pro censorship that would be harmful to Wikipedia's long term future survival. Mathmo Talk 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the "censorship". Can you provide any example of censorship? — Nythar (💬-❄️) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that some users who voted “Delete” mentioned that a valid reason was that ’The New York Times did not publish “very detailed” articles regarding the Twitter Files is truly amazing. I do not mean to offend anyone, but so many users are exuding lack of intelligence, it is unreal to see some saying “let’s see how it plays out”. What do you mean? This is a serious issue. Is ‘The New York Times the reference of journalism? All are valid. The purpose of the files was to expose how corrupt the journalistic world is becoming, that includes US, Wikipedia. If you are concerned about the “optics” think that there are more emails coming. For anyone on the outside deleting this very important article just shows that the right-wing, which I am no fan of, is right in regards to suppressing content. Rivelinp (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rivelinp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    well said 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. The Twitter files are ongoing with relevant factual information. Gensao (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the topic is worthy of keeping, although it would need a serious expansion in the coming weeks. If it *has* to be deleted, I would begrudgingly support a merge into a preexisting article dealing with Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter. EytanMelech (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO this is worth keeping as it has been indicated that there will be more releases. If at that stage it is still not worth not keeping, it may be merged into either Elon Musk's take over of Twitter or the Hunter Biden's laptop story. Chirag (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event to pretend otherwise is dishonest. Varying partisan opinions can be made about the event, but users deserve the newsorthy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete / Merge. The material here can be covered adequately in the Hunter Biden laptop article and/or the article on Matt Taibbi. There's no reason for a tweet thread to have its own stand-alone article. Binarybits (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is still developing, there is apparently more (potentially not related to the laptop story) that will be released in the future. It's a separate event from the laptop controversy, happening years later. Whatever your opinion on the matter, it is still a notable event (hundreds of thousands of likes, not to mention discussion/views) in the story of the Twitter takeover and subsequent reaction to the previous administration. Anyone can add cited information about how other groups of people didn't think it was notable.
  • Keep This is an ongoing story and is already notable. There's no reason it shouldn't have it's own page. Slugiscool99 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Slugiscool99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy and now independent of Taibbi and has outgrown the original "Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy" and has grown to the Trump and Biden administration colluding with a private entity to restrict civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeeeeeep (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while not meeting the definition of a "single purpose account", this account has been largely inactive until this AfD. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias. Jzoch2 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Jzoch2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep.  This is a developing story, with well-established journalists – Taibbi former Rolling Stone editor, and author of several books, and Bari Weis formerly of the New York Times.   While this story clearly needs more development, we are only at the beginning.  There is every reason to believe more is coming.  What we have seen so far shows significant malfeasance on the part of Twitter, the FBI, and political campaigns.  Reasoning that states “delete this article  because the story is a dud according to the media”, should be self-canceling.  That same media told us the story was Russian disinformation.   HarryRAlexander (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — HarryRAlexander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy article, can surely be expanded.--Sakiv (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a story that is well sourced and important. It deals with fundamental first amendment rights. Government actors worked with a private company to censor speech, which is illegal if done directly. And doing this just before an election, to the benefit of one candidate over the other, elevates the importance of this story. Mainstream media, of course, is trying to ignore this story as it reflects poorly on them. The NYT, WAPO, etc. took TWO years to bother to determine that the laptop was legitimate. They took the statements of 40 ex-intel officers that it "had the hallmarks of a Russian information operation" and discredited the story. 47.188.38.194 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 47.188.38.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep certainly relevant. Please expand. Ninety Mile Beach (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break

[edit]
Keep (eventually Merge) - the article is well stated and definitely unbiased. Eventually this should probably be merged to the results of the outcome of the story (either expanding the discussion of Hunter Biden's Laptop or Twitter's oversight of their content) Rwezowicz (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rwezowicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge. As others have said this isn't particularly noteworthy no matter how much some people insist it is. It's a footnote at most, stretched into an entire article. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Archimedes157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Well over a thousand words already is merely "a footnote"?? Please explain the logic of your statement. As the facts are in complete contradiction to it. Mathmo Talk 10:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Internet. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for the closing admin. Single-purpose accounts tagged, plus 2 sleepers with long inactivity til this Afd. The IPs are to numerous to tag as well, but their entries are in the same boat of meritless keep votes. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could they at least be struck? Would make it easier for curious editors like me to see what the current general consensus is. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe so. Usually I've just seen SPAs denoted with the tag so the closing admin knows. I've also tagged another dormant one. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Alright then. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not ascertained by a beancount, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Through that lens, I don't see the various lower-quality arguments offered by newer users and IPs as being a hindrance in determining consensus here, and (while there are very few that are good arguments) I would object to summarily removing their comments simply on the basis that they are new users or anonymous users; doing so is inconsistent with WP:TPO and is not warranted from an WP:IAR perspective at this juncture. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no I"m aware. It's just that the mass amount of low-quality arguments makes it hard for me to see the legit comments. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The general consensus is a solid delete at this point. It would be easier without the cruft, but then we'd have to deal with the misbegotten "my 1st amendment rights!" spam along with the vote spam. Hopefully the Afd will be semi-protected soon. ValarianB (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Popular culture. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy. There is no reason why this straw fire cannot be given what limited attention it deserves within the confines of the article on the larger issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Misuse of Twitter moderation policies in order to affect elections is a different issue than whether or not Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's conduit for illegal payments. You can have any outcome on the Hunter Biden issues and not affect the notability or importance of whether Twitter has been tilting the public square in favor of certain political factions. TMLutas (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TMLutas (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    I dislike all these " canvassed " tags with zero evidence to support it. They're just slurs being thrown at those they disagree with.
    And I agree, the Biden latop and the corruption in the Biden family is a very different topic to Twitter Censorship/Manipulations. (although sure, I'd agree, they're certainly overlapping topics) Mathmo Talk 10:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty easily passes wp:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." NYT, BBC and more are all independent of the source and have all covered the topic. User:King of Hearts is right, significant coverage overrides the subjective opinion that this is a 'nothingburger'. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per King of Hearts, easily notable. A merge might be reasonable, but would be best to wait until things have calmed down and the full scope is better understood. Legoktm (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct answer. The fact that people seek to delete it so soon after initial creation, rather than allow the article to naturally evolve, shows that it is less a concern of a less notable topic and more or less a personal opinion. I think a merge *could* be useful, but only time will tell if this becomes big enough to keep on its own. EytanMelech (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the irony. We all know this will ultimately be kept in some form (maybe with an intermediate deletion, then undeletion, then rename). The existence of multiple reliable sources saying there's nothing of significance (like this) is actual proof there is something signficant to cover. Those most wanting to keep the article, especially those coming off Twitter, in support of Musk, will ultimately hate and despise the article this becomes. Those wishing to delete it now, will ultimately accept its inclusion, but will work to make a lengthy article explaining how there is nothing to see here. Nobody will get what they want. Everybody on all sides of Wikipedia and Twitter will work together, to showcase the worst of Wikipedia and Twitter. All efforts to remove perceived garbage, will result in amplification of the same. --Rob (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of multiple reliable sources saying there's nothing of significance (like this) is actual proof there is something signficant to cover. ... Everybody on all sides of Wikipedia and Twitter will work together, to showcase the worst of Wikipedia and Twitter.
    Indeed. At least the Washington Post eventually came out and confirmed that the originally-suppressed Laptop Story was in fact true -- long after the fact. 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG and V, articles survive daily with far less sourcing and far less notable participants than 2 US Presidential campaigns, the US government, the world's richest man and one of the world's top social media platforms Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy - nothing particularly independently notable and we arent a newsticker (per WP:NOTNEWS). What's more, some of the above arguments are baffling. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The "files" are about data allegedly from the laptop hack, no reason this shouldn't just be a section in the larger article about this. Wish I had some popcorn rn. DPS2004 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misstatement of what the files are, which are corporate communications of Twitter employees and arguments about how Twitter moderation policies were being used/misused. TMLutas (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, it makes as much sense (next to none!) to merge this article with the Biden Laptop article as it does with a bunch of other articles (Big Tech / Internet Censorship / Deplatforming / Twitter suspensions / etc etc etc!!)
    But no, Twitter Files is it's own article! Mathmo Talk 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this discussion should be semi-protected or protected, seeing as the Muskrat himself has posted about this discussion on Twitter and caused a brigade of his fans. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Absurd. Let the conversation play out. It's a seven-day process. Dan.Toler (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's absurd to say a page should be protected when it's under a brigade from people trying to push an agenda. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @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. [reply]
    Yes indeed, perhaps anybody who uses an insulting and biased phrase such as "Muskrat" is only here because they themselves have been "canvassed".... Mathmo Talk 10:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If a lot of people care about it, that makes it all the more important to allow the conversation time. 172.78.61.241 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 172.78.61.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge I don't see how this meets notability standards in its own right. But it's notable enough to the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal that it deserves a section there. It could always be spun out as its own if Taibbi or Weiss release more information and it becomes more notable. Dan.Toler (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how seven sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability? Slywriter (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently NYT, Washington Post, CNN and many others no longer count towards notability in this brave new world of wikipedia in late 2022. Mathmo Talk 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    For you to be able to cite these policies as useful and relevant, you either need to provide some proof of your claims or have a crystal ball. (if you do have one... please give me some useful stock tips! Thanks) Mathmo Talk 11:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the events in question have significant political and cultural ramifications. It's impossible to tell at this point if the impact will increase or decrease over time, but deleting now when it's most relevant would be a huge disservice to anyone looking for information on the subject. Merging is not ideal, as the Biden laptop story is only an example of the issues brought to light by the Twitter Files. The subject of the Twitter Files is the existence of, and ethical implications of, cooperation between government and social media. Biden's laptop is the key example, but it is not the exclusive idea to the point that the Twitter Files are a subsection of that controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.61.241 (talk) — 172.78.61.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy - this is pretty much an attempt to *create* a story rather than document it. No reason for stand alone article. Also, y’all know this is getting brigaded like crazy (for keeping) by alt right and far right accounts on twitter and other social media, right? Probably should just strike any !votes by newish or sleeper accounts. Volunteer Marek 20:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please try to explain why it deserves a merge specifically with the Biden Laptop Scandal and not any of many many other wikipedia topics such as Big Tech / Internet Censorship / Deplatforming / Twitter suspensions / etc etc etc??
    Because the Twitter Files is not specifically only about a laptop, and also touches upon all those many other topics as well.
    Also please explain how on earth well over a thousand plus words somehow are meant to just be a small footnote in an article rather than its own standalone article??? Mathmo Talk 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't say this article should be turned into a "footnote". There's a major difference between footnotes and sections. And the "Twitter Files" are for the most part about Hunter Biden's laptop. Even if there's a minor mention of something else (for which you'll need a reference), that doesn't prove that this needs a stand-alone article. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge/delete - can easily be expanded in Hunter Biden laptop controversy. also I am noticing a lot of these Keep options seem to be stemming from WP:SPA accounts or troll IPs leaning towards right-wing views and language. Might be wise to RFP this AfD since as stated above it’s been posted on Twitter itself and is almost certainly a target by right-wingers trying to influence the outcome with dubious reasoning. This was nothing more then a dud. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter publicly airing its dirty laundry on how it handles censorship requests is a completely separate issue from whether Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's bag man for corrupt payments. The salaciousness of Hunter Biden's laptop contents draws clicks. The misuse of moderation policies according to current Twitter ownership is only tangentially related. TMLutas (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's review WP:GNG together: 1. Presume it deserves an article due to existing cited coverage by NBC News, NY Post, Politico, USA Today, etc. 2. Significant coverage is shown with sources cited; Some comments in this AfD discussion imply that the coverage isn't sufficiently thorough i.e., WP:NOR, but that assertion (implicit or not) does not appear objective. 3. Reliability is confirmed by the variety of frequently used secondary sources. 4. All sources are secondary and 5. Independent of the subject. WP:GNG concludes with some general guidance to use if some of these notability guidelines are not met, but that does not apply since all are met. If editors truly wish to remove this page, I recommend first revising our general notability guidelines to support the deletion. I also recommend a thorough discussion of this AfD, as I am noticing a lot of these (speedy) Delete options seem to be stemming from WP:SPA accounts or troll IPs leaning towards left-wing views and language Calebb (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean the (speedy) keep ones? None of the delete votes have been from IPs, and all six of the six SPAs (and all of the IPs) have voted keep. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should not be deleted because it really happened. Representatives of our government conspired with a private company to stifle the free speech of the very citizens they were elected by. It was motivated by a desire to control the narrative just days before a presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:2f60:fc22:55db:35a7:d8b (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1700:8480:2f60:fc22:55db:35a7:d8b (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - It's notable and worthy of it's own article. Calling someone a SPA is not much different than biting newcomers. These are people becoming interested in the processes of wiki, it should be encouraged. Nweil (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is, quite literally, an issue of how many sources exist. If you claim it's notable, prove it by showing sources in reputable media. DS (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RSs are literally in the article? Nweil (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not opposed to a merge to some other topic, but when the question is "is this subject notable" the answer appears to be "yes". Some sources are only a few hours old and I'd imagine more will come, but the article currently meets WP:GNG. I don't see a rationale for deletion with the current state of available sourcing in mind (most of which don't appear to have existed at the time this AfD began), and the article being a "disaster" is a surmountable problem that can be fixed via editing rather than deletion. I don't want to just list every source but in addition to the NBC article I linked, it's got coverage in NYTimes, Axois, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, and lots more. - Aoidh (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've done an initial pass and moved the most obviously off-topic comments to the talkpage. This does not necessarily mean I think every comment above this one is on-topic, just that I've, again, gotten the most obvious ones. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per WP:GNG, the article meets notability guidelines. It's a significant and rapidly unfolding news story with substantial implications for several public figures. It has been reported on by most major news outlets. If there are quality issues with the article, those can be resolved and, based on the high edit rate, will be resolved sooner rather than later. Deleting it would serve no purpose, as it would just need to be created again anyway. Merging it with the laptop article would be a waste of time and hinder efforts to improve quality, since it would need to be unmerged soon thereafter because it has already been announced that more Twitter Files are going to be published soon unrelated to the laptop, and that it is intended to be a regular thing, covering different aspects of the overall topic of coordination between political interests and Twitter to perform censorship. DanielDeibler (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this clearly meets GNG and as Aoidh notes there is plenty of sourcing. As this appears to be ongoing, I would expect more sourcing to follow. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. This content is due, and the question is whether it merits a standalone article or not. It might be WP:TOOSOON for the standalone article though. But I suspect that by the time this AFD expires, we might have a clearer picture. MarioGom (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no real argument for deleting this information. It is confirmed the laptop, and its contents, are real and were generated by Hunter Biden. It is also a fact, Twitter was approached by the Biden campaign, and FBI personnel, to block distribution of the NY Post article and related topics. The purpose was to manipulate information relevant to a Presidential candidate, thus interfering with an election. That's a level of corruption, from those in government service (FBI personnel and members of Congress involved) we all need to know. To argue we should delete factual, confirmed, material is a disservice to all of us, and destroys all of Wikipedia's credibility. Moses963 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Moses963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
completely correct 96.38.143.71 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And to those who accuse Wikipedia of Left-wing bias, there are lots of short-term articles that get deleted. For example, Hillary Clinton's Delete your account was an article that I created back in 2016 because there were lots of news reports and memes at the time, such as Time Magazine, NY Times, and NPR. However, that had no long-term effect. Trump didn't delete his account at all. Instead, Twitter banned him in 2021, before bing reinstated by Musk in late 2022. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit in either of those suggested articles because it involves more than just the laptop story, and is being released by more journalists than Matt Taibbi. I see no instance of WP:CRYSTAL being violated in the article in question. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would you advocate handling Bari Weiss' use of the materials when that starts coming out? It makes little sense to merge a scoop handed to one of two reporters on the reporter's personal page. Your proposal just doesn't work. TMLutas (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seriously, I cannot believe we're having this discussion, given how clearly it meets GNG standards. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't anything here that merits a separate article. Anything approaching notability here is something that should be covered in the Hunter Biden laptop article. This just seems like a POV fork violation. Also, note to closing admin, a massive amount of the Keep votes above are indeed SPA accounts just made or re-activated after a long absence period only to vote here, due to Elon Musk tweeting and linking to this AfD. They seem to be smart enough to create a user page this time around and thus blue link their names because of it to make themselves seem more legitimate. SilverserenC 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Twitter Files are about internal behavior at Twitter. It has separate and important value apart from anything Hunter Biden did or did not do. Shipping this material off to that page is inappropriate. It's obviously a major development when ownership of a major social media platform announces that public airing of internal dirty laundry under previous ownership is the only way to regain trust and credibility for his platform. Whether or not it's true, the page should stay because it is notable and there's no real controversy that this is Elon Musk's opinion. TMLutas (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an ongoing news event, and it's "notoriety" should be decided upon at the end. The same discussion occurs every single time there is a document dump scandal on here and I'm sick of it. Just keep the damn page and once it all ends, then vote if it was noteworthy or not. Colliric (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy per arguments made by Οἶδα, MurrayScience, and ser! For the time being, it falls short of the GNG mark. There is, however, enough relevant content here to incorporate into the aforementioned article, A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - With no comment on notability, the article better serves our readers as a section in Hunter Biden laptop controversy - the title Twitter Files Investigation is WP:EASTEREGGy and doesn't tell readers to expect an article about Hunter Biden - additionally, I see no evidence that it is independent enough of a topic from the main article to justify it. 10YT, people. 10YT. casualdejekyll 00:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, people who are thinking about commenting in this discussion would do well to read WP:YWAB. casualdejekyll 00:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This suggestion makes little sense as the central concept of The Twitter Files goes far beyond the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The fact that very few people seem to understands this is a good argument for not further conflating the two things by merging. Title is not grounds for deletion, nor are problems with content Wikipedia:Deletion_is_not_cleanup. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People who are thinking about commenting in this discussion should also note that the essay you link to (WP:YWAB) is not Wikipedia policy Nweil (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a strawman there, as no one was claiming it was policy, that person just offered it as a useful read. There are many users who have been here for many, many years. They write essays like this, which are clearly marked as such, to offer their observations and guidance on various matters. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not Wikipedia policy either, and yet people still cite it in deletion discussions: the point of linking the essay was because I didn't find it reasonable to type out the entire contents of the essay into my !vote on an already bloated AfD. casualdejekyll 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Hunter Biden controversy article. Even if you regard Twitter having removed some Hunter Biden revenge porn as something controversial, there is nothing in this article that stands alone from the main Hunter Biden one. Maybe if more content emerges and gets covered, it can be its own controversy page, but it should probably have a more descriptive name. "Twitter files controversy"? "Internal Twitter communications controversy"? If we do end up keeping it, in just its current form, then it definitely needs a move. I'd suggest something like "Twitter deletion of Hunter Biden revenge porn controversy". -Kieran (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show a single source that is used referring to this being about revenge porn? I'm aware of this being a common twitter refrain but looking at all the sources, they discuss removal of content at request of Dem campaign, imply other requests from Republican campaign and document a struggle to understand rationale for suppressing the NYPost story. This is beyond the laptop now and is about the internal governance of one of the world's largest social media companies. Slywriter (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't even news, it's the opposite. Gamaliel (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This isn't the place for censorship. And Wikipedia is not 'News', it's a library of documented facts, which happens to include events. Your level of interest, and you personal opinions, are irrelevant to it. 115.69.29.89 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 115.69.29.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    You're right. Wikipedia is not news. Did you read WP:NOTNEWS? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as others have said, with the Hunter Biden article (or maybe just put it under a controversy section on Twitter or something similar). While I feel that this is news, therefore covered by WP:NOTNEWS, (and is backed up appropriately by the reliable sources on the page's citations), it's not detailed or specific enough to have its own page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge When in doubt (which this discussion shows), keep, or merge if the topic of the unveil itself is found deeply non-topical (beyond me!). Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This isn't about the laptop. It's about the first amendment violations and interference in elections. Fharryn (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Fharryn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Except there are no first amendment violations as the first amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities like Twitter. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is when the request for denial of free speech comes from a government entity which IS subject to the laws of The Constitution. So yeah. Twitter would never be in trouble for this, but the government entities requesting the removal could certainly be. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to fact-check sources or argue about the laws. We are here to judge the content of articles in accordance with our policies. Also, please read said policies before voting. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, I have no clue what it has to do with interference in elections either casualdejekyll 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that this is a good argument to improve this article instead of deleting/merging it. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's well established at this point (20 years of precedent) that if a section in an article gets too long and unwieldy, it can be split back out easily. WP:SPLIT. I would recommend only attempting such a thing ~3 months+ down the line when we truly know if everyone will have remembered this all or not. casualdejekyll 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no one mentions this 3 months down the line then it can be merged wherever is most appropriate. I see no good argument for deletion, and no sensible suggestion for where it should be merged to right now. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument assumes that "having an article" is the default state. We disagree on this, it seems. casualdejekyll 01:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to surveys, something like 12% (no source for now, but one could be found) of Biden voters would have changed their votes or stayed home had they known Joe Biden was allegedly connected to the wrongdoings. That would have been enough to change the winner in about 9 states. That could have changed the outcome of the election. Fharryn (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post says no. Your turn to provide a source, please. casualdejekyll 01:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ought to add that there were other accounts that match these characteristics–all also voting some variation of Keep–but I don't think it's the job of a non-admin to catalog every questionable AfD edit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether to keep or delete an article should be based on the merits of the argument and not on the prior Wikipedia editing history of the persons making the argument. If what you say is correct, all that probably suggests is a political bias on the part of regular Wikipedia editors, nothing more. 151.210.141.140 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're mostly wrong here. There are many single-purpose accounts or canvassed IPs or accounts, which should not be happening. If single-purpose accounts were allowed, someone could just create a dozen accounts and vote "keep" a dozen times, or perhaps use a dozen IPs. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final action here won't be based on a vote count, so the argument that "Anyone could create a dozen accounts and vote 'keep/delete'" falls flat. Those people would also have to make a viable argument for the keep/delete... or they will not be considered. If they -can- make a viable argument for keep/delete, then this should not be discounted based on "past participation patterns". 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. While we don't do headcounts in such discussions, the number of editors voting keep/delete can affect the result. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that the "merits of the argument" are hotly debated - and you don't seem to have put forward an argument yourself, either. casualdejekyll 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@151.210.141.140: Within controversial AfD discussions, it is standard to review whether the scales might be tipped one way or another by behaviors that are prohibited by policy and applied without regard to partisan persuasion. In this instance, a significant number of Keep votes come from editors whose behaviors are consistent with policy-violating actions. Speaking frankly and at the risk of appearing trite, I am among those disgruntled and disapproving of the suppression campaign against the laptop investigation. However, I think the contents of this article should be merged elsewhere based on policy. Similar merit-based stances are permissible, aggrieved and unsubstantiated claims of bias are not. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Not everyone can be online 25/7 to make changes on a daily basis. 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 65.190.23.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@65.190.23.202: You're right! Some people can commit more time to this project than others, leading to an imbalance of experience between editors. As such, perspectives from established editors with 10 years of unblemished contributions will likely be held in higher esteem than first-time editors. Don't let this dissuade you from contributing, but recognize that in discussions such as these, tenure plays a role. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are not voting on whether or not this information is critical alone. Instead, we intend to determine if this needs its own article. If the answer to that is no, then it's also possible that it needs to be a section of some other article, but not have its own article. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
  • 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,[1] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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. [reply]
    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. [reply]
    Censoring/deleting an article is doing harm to the wikipedia. Mathmo Talk 09:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Meganinja202, if you haven't heard of single-purpose accounts, then please do read about them. And reducing all "delete" votes to "IDONTLIKEIT" is complete misrepresentation. Finally, it doesn't matter if a dozen news outlets have reported on this. Do you think they'll still be publishing articles about this in the next 1, 3, 5, 10 years? That is more important. Why? Read WP:RECENTISM for a good explanation. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do know about purpose accounts but i don't think this is the case, i believe that most inactive people showed up to voice their concerns about this question in Good Faith.
Also, i do think people will continue talking about it in a way or another, independtly of political spectrium, especially since is already impacting the 2024 US elections debate and newer talks about Government intervention on Social Media are arising.
If people think it is a misunderstood or it just is a theory, they should voice those concerns on the talk page or try to edit to voice their bias better Meganinja202 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also i said MOST opinions, not ALL opinions, there is a difference Meganinja202 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPThe Twitter files is evidence that Twitter colluded with government in a bias manner. Wikipedia will become even more irrelevant as a reliable source of information if it deletes this. 2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This is a canvassed nightmare but I will give my 2 cents: Merge to 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. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 05:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Wikipedia:Recentism is relevant here at all. And clearly the person who nominated this article for deletion was very trigger happy in that they nominated it for deletion only a half hour after it was created and rushed in too fast. I'd suggest that those people who somehow strangely think this topic suffers from Wikipedia:Recentism ought to wait for a few weeks, or even better a few months, to see if their crystal ball predictions turn out to be true (how though, I can't see any path forward to that for them). If they're right, then sure, at that point in time then I too would support a merger. But at the present time, there is as yet no basis on which to support a merger. Mathmo Talk 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Muboshgu. This fails 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)[reply]
    A "small detail" ? This article lists an instance of a corporation explicitly engaging in censorship which some think is unjustified. Additionally I strongly disagree with you when you say that The Twitter Files have not got extensive media coverage, they have got more than enough media coverage . Thus this article must be included Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "...the content from that laptop violated Twitter rules against revenge porn..."
    Not true at all. And anybody with even a very superficial knowledge of the Biden Laptop Scandal would know that statement was flat out false. As it was not scandalous the pictures were being censored, but that even links to the published news stories on this were being censored and accounts sharing it were being banned!!! Heck, people couldn't even share the news story links in their DMs!! (that's a level of censorship on twitter that had never been seen before for this type of material) Mathmo Talk 10:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Censorship, political bias, underhand maneuvers of social platforms have always been there for a long time and are widely known. The Twitter files, even if they are true, merely reinforce such facts and CONTAIN NOTHING NEW. Might as well yet be another coordinated attack on democracy and smear campaign against the leftists by Musk. Sofeshue (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sofeshue: This is not really a commentary on the subject's notability according to WP:GNG nor its worthiness of being an independent article according to our other policies. Please consider amending your vote to reflect reasoning based on the article and subject's merits. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nothing new"??? The Twitter Files were shocking even for those people who have been following these types of new stories for years, let alone people who haven't been hearing about it. (which is most people, most people are blissfully unaware of just how much censorship is going on) Mathmo Talk 10:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* The Twitter Files have allegedly revealed how the platform could be influenced by outside parties to censor posts. Supplementally the topic has been covered by multiple news organisations. While the total impact of the revelations can be debated, what is incontrovertible is that this page must stay in interests of fairness and transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria Bucephalous (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete (EC). Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, we don't need to document every event that gets coverage (or even lots of coverage), much less give everything its own standalone article. Per PAGEDECIDE, we can deny independent articles on topics even if they meet GNG and don't violate NOT; and in this case, the subject doesn't even clearly pass NOT as we have no indication it is of enduring importance. JoelleJay (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, the decisive factor in favor of deletion is the 10 year test as others have mentioned. The mere presence of immediate reporting doesn’t mean that readers will be able to make sense of the topic very soon after our low attention span news cycle moves on. The broader discussion on the numerous political conspiracies of our day surely has a place in this encyclopedia, but in that article this ripple will be but a single sentence, if that much. -- Y not? 06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This topic is clearly relevant today, which is when you and I are discussing this. But you claim to have a crystal ball to claim that somehow in ten years time this will all be seen as so very irrelevant it deserves to be deleted? Sorry, but no WP:CRYSTALBALL Mathmo Talk 10:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s exactly the point — if we’re having this conversation in a month, this is just a forgotten specific projectile in the overall battle that is our lamentable conspiratorial political discourse. This is an encyclopedia, not The New York Post, we have a different scope here. Of course that’s just my judgment about an appropriate level of granularity for this encyclopedia, but this is fine because I’m its editor. Look, if these “Twitter files” get deleted today, but somehow end up as significant to history as the Pentagon Papers or the Steele dossier, we can definitely have an article about them then, okay? With the benefit of patience and hindsight. Am I allowed to say that, or 🪩? -- Y not? 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge In its current state, the article is does not contain enough info and isn't detailed enough to justify its existence. If there is more info "leaked" over the weekend, especially relating to topics that are not Hunter Biden, this could change. But for now, it should be merged into Hunter Biden laptop controversy. A lot of the keep votes accusing Wikipedia of censorship do not realize that the limited info in this article will remain in one form or another, just not in a standalone article. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are already aspects of the Twitter Files story that are not just about Hunter Biden. We've long gone past the point at which this is not just a very notable topic, but a standalone topic as well. Mathmo Talk 10:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    99% of it is about Hunter Biden. If they release something about COVID for example, then it would warrant its own article. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • KEEP - the article has barely been up and already people (or bots) are calling for it to be deleted. I'm not really surprised this is happening - I'm sure people at Wikipedia are being "encouraged" to remove it. Wombat-911 (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Wombat-911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Ironic. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Insufficient coverage to justify an article on it as a separate topic, especially under this name. Most of the sourcing doesn't treat the name as reliable or significant (using it only in quotes), and largely treats it as a subtopic of the 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. [reply]
  • Comment: A nomination made just thirty minutes after an article was created... an article as woefully incomplete as this one is... hard to pick a side here. One thing's for sure though: your comments in this discussion are going to be in the damn newspaper! Please discuss accordingly. jp×g 10:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: It is too notable to be deleted. If this event is not notable enough for Wikipedia, I believe there are at least a million article on Wikipedia that is less notable. To (kind of) prove this claim, just click "Random article" on Wikipedia; my claim is that for almost anyone, this article is more notable than 1 article for each 6 random articles; so, there are at least a million articles less notable than this because there are more than 6 million article on English Wikipedia. Mstf221 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge There seem to be plenty of third party, notable, sources. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to discourage journalism by wikipedia editors, and keep out celebrity gossip and routine fluff articles, not exclude political scandals and current events. Helixdq (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Well-sourced and notable. Can and should be separate from laptop article, just as Tower Commission is separate from Iran–Contra affair. Michaelmalak (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG at this point. If it truly were a "nothing burger" why are so many people arriving here and commenting on the talk page? There appears to be some political activism going on in the attempts to delete this page. The Twitter Files describe Big Tech collusion with political figures, and the censoring of a mainstream news source. The public will be watching to see if Wikipedia can provide neutrality here, or if it too is politically compromised. Beachy (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beachy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    So many people are arriving here because Elon unleashed his army on this. See WP:CAN. D4R1U5 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't assume bad faith. I have not been "canvassed" by anyone. I've been an active user and contributor to Wikipedia since 2006 and I came to this article because I searched Wikipedia for information on a notable event. Beachy (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete & Merge for the aforementioned reasons, and merge into the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Also: This poll is being manipulated by Musk on Twitter. No sure how we can reach any honest consensus under such an invasion. IMHO Musk personally sending his fanboys after this process makes it pretty much irrelevant, but I have no idea how to resolve it in the other way. Maybe limit who can actually participate? SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a poll -- AfDs are closed according to consensus and consensus is assessed based on arguments that reference policies and guidelines. If a bunch of people show up to post nonsense, it will not have an effect on the outcome of the discussion, so I don't think any such action is needed. Also, I do not understand how you are advocating that it be deleted and merged at the same time (this is not possible). jp×g 11:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now, I admire brevity as much as Hunter admires women, but I don't see how an article of this size can be merged without trimming important information. Delete !votes make no sense when the there is so much significant coverage in all mainstream reliable sources, much of it critical of the leaks itself btw, which is also notable. And, how come such a bad faith nomination was allowed to continue? Nominator says, "I don't know where to start explaining why this should be deleted. It's a disaster; feverish argument, but should be disregarded. Then says, Maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one, which overlooks WP: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)[reply]
Well, it's a bunch of newspaper articles about a bunch of tweets about a bunch of e-mails about a bunch of tweets, and all of it happened about three days ago, so it's not certain that the thread of discussion will see continued coverage (or that such coverage will establish it as independently notable from the people reporting on it and/or the original controversy). jp×g 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't much, but this is receiving continuing significant coverage, [3], [4]. — hako9 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Also at this point of time, anything Elon does makes the news. So that in itself is not a good enough argument. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the 2nd point of WP:NOTNEWS. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CRYSTAL. Nythar (💬-❄️) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Keep: Because no solid policy-based argument for deletion has been presented in the discussion so far. The topic is obviously notable, finding verifiable sources is entirely possible. The quality of the current revision of an article has never been an argument for deleting an article altogether.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may become notable in the future, if actual information is revealed (rather than just insinuations designed to push a partisan agenda), or even if the partisan insinuations end up having a notable societal impact. But at the moment, there’s nothing notable here. Klausness (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3

[edit]
  • There is already consensus to change the title (see Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022), so it will be renamed soon to just Twitter Files. However, that has nothing to do with notability criteria. MarioGom (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have pointed out, the case for Delete has not been made, and several of the Delete votes suggest merging as an alternative. Note that a merge does not necessarily remove any present or future content, it's more a matter of editorial convenience. In this situation I would argue that Twitter and its editorial practices are much more important subjects than Hunter Biden or his electronic devices. Twitter is under new management which seems determined to release material that it feels casts bad light on the previous management. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that incidents other that the purloined laptop might well emerge. Our article already mentions claims of interference by the Trump Administration. If we merge and other incidents get attention, we may have to unmerge. If over time it turns out that nothing significant emerges beyond the laptop issue, we can always merge then. Keeping the articles separate for the time being is the sensible thing to do. —This editor has made over 30,000 edits outside this topic, and finds the added anonymous notes on other commenter's edits obnoxious.--agr (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That should totally be a template. Maybe {{MPA}}[2]? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename 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)[reply]
  • Keep but make it as succinct as possible until the release and (non-)debate around it has concluded, then sum up the event and re-evaluate if it should be merged or kept. It's certainly noteworthy, not necessarily for its content but definitely for its motives and impact. Also can we please filter out the brigading accounts here? --Kraligor (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ "The Twitter Files, Explained". Gizmodo Australia. 2022-12-04. Retrieved 2022-12-07.
  2. ^ multiple purpose account
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation&oldid=1218973966"