Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Silver seren (talk | contribs) Please don't edit closed AfDs |
||
| (334 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
===[[:Twitter Files Investigation]]===
{{NOTAVOTE|1=you saw a tweet about this discussion ([https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1600189574357323777?s=61&t=H1YcH1o_m3NST143I2GA5Q][https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600200000763756544?s=61&t=H1YcH1o_m3NST143I2GA5Q])}}
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=Twitter Files Investigation}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 4#{{anchorencode:Twitter Files Investigation}}|View log]]</noinclude> | [[Special:Diff/1125600377/cur|edits since nomination]])
Line 11 ⟶ 17:
: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. [[Special:Contributions/72.66.79.219|72.66.79.219]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]] ([[User talk:174.125.30.248|talk]]) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:::@[[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]], [[WP:YWAB|Yes. We are biased]]. <s>We're biased and we're proud of it.</s> I'm proud of it, not everyone is or agrees, see comment below by jpxg. But I think the point still stands. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Please dont speak for all editors [[User:Casualdejekyll]]. Thanks [[User:Nweil|Nweil]] ([[User talk:Nweil|talk]]) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 11:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::[[User:JPxG|JPxG]], see their link.<span id="Nythar:1670413444226:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 11:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
::::::{{ping|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". '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|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. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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. [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ADWNSW|ADWNSW]] ([[User talk: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]], or[[WP:NEXIST]] - an article is not notable unless it is notable now. In order to be notable, it would need to be considered notable for some other reason (e.g. shocking claims that had a widespread impact) by independent sources - which is very different from a single celebrity "implying there was a pattern".
::: If this event does become notable in the future, there is no reason why this page cannot simply be restored. Wikipedia is intended to be read as it is right now. Articles that merely may one day be notable clearly should not be something presented to readers right now.
:::On the contrary to "only confirming bias", deleting the page would be setting a bad precedent that justifies the creation of articles on topics that notable figures claim will be significant - this precedent would be made stronger by it being so public. [[Special:Contributions/58.178.108.163|58.178.108.163]] ([[User talk:58.178.108.163|talk]]) 10:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::DO NOT DELETE [[Special:Contributions/197.136.58.40|197.136.58.40]] ([[User talk: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.
Line 28 ⟶ 44:
:::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. [[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]] ([[User talk:174.125.30.248|talk]]) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::::[[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]], Xenomancer wasn't accusing Twitter of censorship, they were accusing an editor of censorship, specifically {{noping|soibangla}} (from my observations). Editors shouldn't accuse others of censorship unless there's evidence, or if it's obvious. Read the discussion above.<span id="Nythar:1670377651780:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 01:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
::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. [[Special:Contributions/73.106.38.213|73.106.38.213]] ([[User talk:73.106.38.213|talk]]) 15:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:Keep [[Special:Contributions/68.98.61.205|68.98.61.205]] ([[User talk:68.98.61.205|talk]]) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/68.98.61.205|68.98.61.205]] ([[User talk:68.98.61.205|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
::Wikipedia was never a reliable source in the first place: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source|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." ([https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/tech/musk-twitter-hunter-biden/index.html CNN]){{pb}}Oh, and also [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions|none of what you said is a policy-based reason for deletion]]. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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, [[User:Cwojahn|Cwojahn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (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? [[User:Briang7723|Briang7723]] ([[User talk:Briang7723|talk]]) 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Briang7723|Briang7723]] ([[User talk:Briang7723|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Briang7723|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small>
::Strongly agree [[User:Pixk1|Pixk1]] ([[User talk:Pixk1|talk]]) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Pixk1|Pixk1]] ([[User talk:Pixk1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pixk1|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
: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. [[User:FreeThinkingPanda|FreeThinkingPanda]] ([[User talk:FreeThinkingPanda|talk]]) 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— [[User:FreeThinkingPanda|FreeThinkingPanda]] ([[User talk:FreeThinkingPanda|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FreeThinkingPanda|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
::Very well said [[User:Cwojahn|Cwojahn]] ([[User talk:Cwojahn|talk]]) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- the following is an answer by [[user:Wikisempra|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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wikisempra|Wikisempra]] ([[User talk:Wikisempra#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wikisempra|contribs]]) 21:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics|Politics]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|United States of America]]. [[User:Shellwood|Shellwood]] ([[User talk:Shellwood|talk]]) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 21:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
*:This very much is noteworthy. [[Special:Contributions/66.128.188.1|66.128.188.1]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB|2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB|talk]]) 02:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB|2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:::again, SPA templates of IP addresses, especially IPV6 addresses are not appropriate. [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (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. [[Special:Contributions/185.135.96.198|185.135.96.198]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikisempra|Wikisempra]] ([[User talk:Wikisempra|talk]]) 22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''Note to closing admin''': [[User:Wikisempra|Wikisempra]] ([[User talk:Wikisempra|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wikisempra|contribs]]) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this [[WP:XFD|XfD]].<!-- from Template:Page creator --> </small>
*'''Delete''' per Zaathras '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642
*:'''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. [[Special:Contributions/182.69.182.138|182.69.182.138]] ([[User talk:182.69.182.138|talk]]) 13:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' This is an evolving story and a page will permit expanded documentation.[[User:Kmccook|Kmccook]] ([[User talk:Kmccook|talk]]) 22:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
*:
*'''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.) – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|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. [[Special:Contributions/185.135.96.198|185.135.96.198]] ([[User talk:185.135.96.198|talk]]) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 50 ⟶ 79:
*::No you don't - it has not ended and will be continued. [[Special:Contributions/83.6.213.108|83.6.213.108]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/185.135.96.198|185.135.96.198]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|talk]]) 02:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::See this part:
*::<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
*::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. [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Taichi|Taichi]] ([[User talk:Taichi|talk]]) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
*:Who care what they do, that's them and this is here. [[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[Special:Contributions/2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF|2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk: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. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 00:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' -- under the scope of the laptop article. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 01:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 68 ⟶ 101:
*: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. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:6A00:FA01:314F:C799:D2A6:43F2|2A00:23C8:6A00:FA01:314F:C799:D2A6:43F2]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#00c6ff;">''Liliana''</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#ff879a;">''UwU''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contribs]])</sup> 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. [[User:WngLdr34|Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! ]] ([[User talk:WngLdr34|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 [[Special:Contributions/2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF|2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/58.178.108.163|58.178.108.163]] ([[User talk: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. [https://www.newsweek.com/former-gop-candidate-calls-bullets-response-twitter-files-1764428 "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."] -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|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. [[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/49.190.74.223|49.190.74.223]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[Special:Contributions/58.178.108.163|58.178.108.163]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:There-being|There-being]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/89.151.45.125|89.151.45.125]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files_Investigation&oldid=1125586660 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. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b>]][[User Talk:Vanilla Wizard|<b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b>]]</b> [[Special:Contribs/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. [[Special:Contributions/72.42.157.24|72.42.157.24]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 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? [[Special:Contributions/72.42.157.24|72.42.157.24]] ([[User talk:72.42.157.24|talk]]) 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
*::::<blockquote>The closer will evaluate the arguments, particularly those that cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to determine the consensus</blockquote> [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/58.178.108.163|58.178.108.163]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cable10291|Cable10291]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 11:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 88 ⟶ 126:
:*: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. [[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]] ([[User talk:174.125.30.248|talk]]) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::Amen! [[Special:Contributions/174.125.30.248|174.125.30.248]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:SOAPBOX|soapbox]], so the idea the article is "crucial to [Wikipedia's] survival" is not a reason for its inclusion either. [[User:EmilyIsTrans|EmilyIsTrans]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Again with the "censorship". Can you provide any example of censorship?<span id="Nythar:1670410731444:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*'''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. [[User:Rivelinp|Rivelinp]] ([[User talk:Rivelinp|talk]]) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Rivelinp|Rivelinp]] ([[User talk:Rivelinp|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rivelinp|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:well said [[Special:Contributions/2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC]] ([[User talk:2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|talk]]) 22:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC]] ([[User talk:2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*Keep. The Twitter files are ongoing with relevant factual information. [[User:Gensao|Gensao]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EytanMelech|EytanMelech]] ([[User talk:EytanMelech|talk]]) 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 96 ⟶ 137:
* '''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. [[User:Binarybits|Binarybits]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Slugiscool99|Slugiscool99]] ([[User talk:Slugiscool99|talk]]) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Slugiscool99|Slugiscool99]] ([[User talk:Slugiscool99|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Slugiscool99|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sheeeeeeep|Sheeeeeeep]] ([[User talk:Sheeeeeeep#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sheeeeeeep|contribs]]) 19:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::'''Comment''' - while not meeting the definition of a "single purpose account", this account has been largely inactive until this AfD. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 103 ⟶ 144:
*'''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. [[User:Equine-man|Equine-man]] ([[User talk:Equine-man|talk]]) 19:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias. [[User:Jzoch2|Jzoch2]] ([[User talk:Jzoch2|talk]]) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Jzoch2|Jzoch2]] ([[User talk:Jzoch2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jzoch2|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''Keep''' there’s enough coverage of this to pass [[WP:GNG]]. The content is still being covered by plenty of reliable sources. [[Special:Contributions/2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85|2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85]] ([[User talk:2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85|talk]]) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85|2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85]] ([[User talk:2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
:'''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. [[User:HarryRAlexander|HarryRAlexander]] ([[User talk:HarryRAlexander|talk]]) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:HarryRAlexander|HarryRAlexander]] ([[User talk:HarryRAlexander|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HarryRAlexander|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''Keep''' Noteworthy article, can surely be expanded.--[[User:Sakiv|Sakiv]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/47.188.38.194|47.188.38.194]] ([[User talk:47.188.38.194|talk]]) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/47.188.38.194|47.188.38.194]] ([[User talk:47.188.38.194|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
* '''Keep''' certainly relevant. Please expand. [[User:Ninety Mile Beach|Ninety Mile Beach]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:MurrayScience|MurrayScience]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Mmurrian|Mmurrian]] ([[User talk:Mmurrian|talk]]) 19:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Mmurrian|Mmurrian]] ([[User talk:Mmurrian|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mmurrian|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:well written and researched [[Special:Contributions/2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC]] ([[User talk:2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|talk]]) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC]] ([[User talk:2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''Keep'''. Heavily covered in mainstream media: [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/business/media/elon-musk-twitter-matt-taibbi.html NYT], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/03/elon-musk-and-matt-taibbi-release-twitter-docs-hunter-biden-tapes/10826408002/ USA Today], [https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/04/business/elon-musk-twitter-files-comments/index.html 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]]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 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. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 20:54, 6 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) [[User:Rwezowicz|Rwezowicz]] ([[User talk:Rwezowicz|talk]]) 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Rwezowicz|Rwezowicz]] ([[User talk:Rwezowicz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rwezowicz|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''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. [[User:Archimedes157|Archimedes157]] ([[User talk:Archimedes157|talk]]) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Archimedes157|Archimedes157]] ([[User talk:Archimedes157|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Archimedes157|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 10:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism|Journalism]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet|Internet]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 128 ⟶ 176:
*<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|Companies]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture|Popular culture]]. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">[[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">(nest)</span>]]</sub></span> 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. --<span style="font-family:Courier">[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]</span> <small>([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])</small> 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. [[User:TMLutas|TMLutas]] ([[User talk:TMLutas|talk]]) 23:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:TMLutas|TMLutas]] ([[User talk:TMLutas|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TMLutas|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small>
*::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) [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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'. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EytanMelech|EytanMelech]] ([[User talk: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 ([https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-twitter-files-1234640842/ 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. --[[User:Thivierr|Rob]] ([[User talk:Thivierr|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.''
Line 138 ⟶ 189:
*'''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. [[User:DPS2004|DPS2004]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TMLutas|TMLutas]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
*:Absurd. Let the conversation play out. It's a seven-day process. [[User:Dan.Toler|Dan.Toler]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
*:: <blockquote> {{Ping|Di (they-them)}} The Muskrat himself has posted about this.</blockquote> 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. [[Special:Contributions/92.10.171.52|92.10.171.52]] ([[User talk:92.10.171.52|talk]]) 21:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/92.10.171.52|92.10.171.52]] ([[User talk:92.10.171.52|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*::
*::If a lot of people care about it, that makes it all the more important to allow the conversation time. [[Special:Contributions/172.78.61.241|172.78.61.241]] ([[User talk:172.78.61.241|talk]]) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/172.78.61.241|172.78.61.241]] ([[User talk:172.78.61.241|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''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. [[User:Dan.Toler|Dan.Toler]] ([[User talk:Dan.Toler|talk]]) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
*:Can you explain how seven sources do not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability? [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:::[[User:Mathmo|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.<span id="Nythar:1670411178411:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*::::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) [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/172.78.61.241|172.78.61.241]] ([[User talk:172.78.61.241#top|talk]]) </small>'''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/172.78.61.241|172.78.61.241]] ([[User talk:172.78.61.241|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''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.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 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??? [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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.<span id="Nythar:1670411410470:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
* '''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. --'''''[[User:MarioProtIV|MarioProtIV]]''''' (<sup>[[User talk:MarioProtIV|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MarioProtIV|contribs]]</sub>) 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. [[User:TMLutas|TMLutas]] ([[User talk:TMLutas|talk]]) 23:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 159 ⟶ 220:
* '''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. [[User:DanielDeibler|DanielDeibler]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mr Ernie|Mr Ernie]] ([[User talk:Mr Ernie|talk]]) 21:54, 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. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Moses963|Moses963]] ([[User talk:Moses963|talk]]) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Moses963|Moses963]] ([[User talk:Moses963|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Moses963|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
::completely correct [[Special:Contributions/96.38.143.71|96.38.143.71]] ([[User talk:96.38.143.71|talk]]) 01:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 170 ⟶ 232:
*'''Keep''' Clearly meets GNG. Absurd that this is even listed here. - [[User:Bbny-wiki-editor|Bbny-wiki-editor]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tvaughan1|Tvaughan1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sblack4|Sblack4]] ([[User talk:Sblack4|talk]]) 23:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Sblack4|Sblack4]] ([[User talk:Sblack4|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sblack4|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''Keep''' Why is this being deleted? It meets GNG. This is a notable topic. This is not the time to play political partisan. [[User:Xenomancer|Xenomancer]] ([[User talk: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. [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/elon-musks-twitter-files-trump-tweets-complicate-free-speech-rcna60322 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? ''[[User:Yoshiman6464|<span style="font-family: courier; color:#228B22">Yoshiman6464</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Yoshiman6464|♫🥚]]</sup>'' 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 220 ⟶ 282:
*:::::::::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. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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? [[Special:Contributions/216.164.226.167|216.164.226.167]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/58.178.108.163|58.178.108.163]] ([[User talk: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]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 11:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::::::::::This isn't contributing to this specific discussion. [[Special:Contributions/58.178.108.163|58.178.108.163]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk: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: {{noping|TMLutas}} (3 edits in 12 months preceding, 5 here), {{noping|Capt. Milokan}} (2 edits in last 12 months), {{noping|Xenomancer}} (8 edits in last five years, 3 here), {{noping|Sblack4}} (confirmed sock), {{noping|Tvaughan1}} (no edits between June 2021 and this AfD), {{noping|Bbny-wiki-editor}} (4 edits in 12 months preceding), {{noping|Moses963}} (sole edit), {{noping|DanielDeibler}} (no other edits in last 10 years), {{noping|172.78.61.241}} (sole IP edit), {{noping|Jimmy zed0}} (sole edit), {{noping|73.223.59.4}} (sole IP edit), {{noping|68.98.61.205}} (sole IP edit), {{noping|AlfieNewman52}} (two other edits, extreme [[WP:UNCIVIL|UNCIVIL]]), {{noping|Ninety Mile Beach}} (8 other edits in last 10 years, but also semi-active on German Wiki), {{noping|111.119.178.138}} (9 edits in preceding 12 months, repeatedly abused IP address), {{noping|HarryRAlexander}} (9 other edits), {{noping|2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85}} (1 other edit), {{noping|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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 01:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Line 228 ⟶ 300:
:::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. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 01:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::::{{re|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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 01:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::So what? Not everyone can be online 25/7 to make changes on a daily basis. [[Special:Contributions/65.190.23.202|65.190.23.202]] ([[User talk:65.190.23.202|talk]]) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/65.190.23.202|65.190.23.202]] ([[User talk:65.190.23.202|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
::::::{{re|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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ultimograph5|Ultimograph5]] ([[User talk: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). [[User:Perenista|Perenista]] ([[User talk:Perenista|talk]]) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Perenista|Perenista]] ([[User talk:Perenista|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Perenista|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
Line 233 ⟶ 307:
*'''Keep''' It is covered by reliable sources and is notable. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' It's obviously notable. [[User:Wwoods|—WWoods]] ([[User talk: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 [[Special:Diff/760274507|in five years...]] And for that matter, the last one before that was [[Special:Diff/517845282|ten years ago.]] Perhaps standards have changed. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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"). [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|talk]]) 01:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:Then you argue against those individually. "Some arguments for X are bad" doesn't mean that "All arguments for X are bad". [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Decker|here]]. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0|talk]]) 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*This is a critical piece of information. Please keep! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.179.136.46|99.179.136.46]] ([[User talk:99.179.136.46#top|talk]]) 02:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small> '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/99.179.136.46|99.179.136.46]] ([[User talk:99.179.136.46|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
:*{{re|99.179.136.46}} Information on this will appear somewhere, but just not as its own article. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Among Us for POTUS|Among Us for POTUS]] ([[User talk: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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:73.240.114.239|73.240.114.239]] ([[User talk:73.240.114.239#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/73.240.114.239|contribs]]) 02:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small> '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/73.240.114.239|73.240.114.239]] ([[User talk:73.240.114.239|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:[[WP:TOOSOON]] is still valid, though? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 02:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''keep''' It's too early to make any permanent decision on this evolving situation. [[User:Gentgeen|Gentgeen]] ([[User talk: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" [[User:Flibbertigibbets|Flibbertigibbets]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TzafnatPaneach|TzafnatPaneach]] 02:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' to [[List of conspiracy theories]]<span style="color:red">→</span>''[[User:Stanistani|<b style="color:green">Stani</b>]][[User talk:Stanistani|<b style="color:blue">Stani</b>]]'' 02:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:{{re|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 @[[User:Stanistani|Stanistani]]... follow you own advice....try to do better than '''Conspiracy Theories''' [[Special:Contributions/49.190.74.223|49.190.74.223]] ([[User talk:49.190.74.223|talk]]) 10:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
* {{admin 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. '''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]</sup> 02:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''keep''' This is an evolving story and a page will permit expanded documentation. [[User:Gulbenk|Gulbenk ]] ([[User talk:Gulbenk|talk]]) 02:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:Wikipedia is not a [[Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL|crystal ball]], an article can be created when the story has evolved. [[User:EmilyIsTrans|EmilyIsTrans]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ciroa|Ciroa]] ([[User talk:Ciroa|talk]]) 03:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:*{{re|Ciroa}} Unrelated to content and not a position taken on merit. Please review the blurb at the top of this page. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TZaddo|TZaddo]] ([[User talk:TZaddo|talk]]) 04:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:TZaddo|TZaddo]] ([[User talk:TZaddo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TZaddo|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*'''Keep''' per [[WP:GNG]]. Sources include NYT, WAPO, CNN, Bloomberg News, USA Today, The Atlantic, and NBC. 'Nuff said. [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk: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 [[Hunter Biden laptop controversy|that article]] until and unless it becomes independently covered from the Hunter Biden situation. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 03:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:The problem with this arguement is [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]]ing; we can't cover future Twitter Files before reliable sources report on them. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk: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. [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:TruthGuardians|TruthGuardians]] ([[User talk:TruthGuardians|talk]]) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' as there is suppression of FBI links to the Twitter Files by [[James A. Baker (government attorney)|James A. Baker]]. Says the significance of this matter. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Samuelled|Samuelled]] ([[User talk:Samuelled#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Samuelled|contribs]]) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''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! [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 04:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
**[[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]], you provided no actual argument. The potential to "{{tq|break every irony meter on the planet}}" is not a policy, from what I can remember.<span id="Nythar:1670385776610:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 04:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
**: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]]! [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 09:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
**::[[User:Mathmo|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.<span id="Nythar:1670407027752:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 09:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
**:::"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". [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 10:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
**::[[User:Mathmo|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.<span id="Nythar:1670408393765:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 10:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
**:::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". [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
**::::[[User:Mathmo|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?<span id="Nythar:1670409039143:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 10:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
**:::::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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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.<span id="Nythar:1670414309443:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 11:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*'''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,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-12-04 |title=The Twitter Files, Explained |url=https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2022/12/the-twitter-files-explained/ |access-date=2022-12-07 |website=Gizmodo Australia |language=en-AU}}</ref> 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. [[User:EmilyIsTrans|EmilyIsTrans]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:EmilyIsTrans|EmilyIsTrans]] ([[User talk: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! [[Special:Contributions/2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E|2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E]] ([[User talk:2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E|talk]]) 04:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC) real_name_hidden '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E|2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E]] ([[User talk:2610:148:1F02:5000:C16E:8CD6:7223:647E|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:What harm? Are you suggesting that harm/jail would come to these people? [[Special:Contributions/65.190.23.202|65.190.23.202]] ([[User talk:65.190.23.202|talk]]) 05:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/65.190.23.202|65.190.23.202]] ([[User talk:65.190.23.202|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*::Censoring/deleting an article is doing harm to the wikipedia. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 09:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:Keep [[Special:Contributions/65.190.23.202|65.190.23.202]] ([[User talk:65.190.23.202|talk]]) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''keep''' First of all it is about corruption allegations about one of [[Twitter#Impact|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 [https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/musk-is-entitled-order-disclosures-like-the-twitter-files-are-states-2022-12-05/ American News Media] and also picked up in other countries (Like [https://oantagonista.uol.com.br/opiniao/twitter-files-um-escandalo-mundial/ Brazil], [https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/twitter-files-part-1-elon-musk-shares-sensitive-old-twitters-employees-conversation-revealing-censorship-on-the-platform/ar-AA14QLGY?li=AAgfYGb India], [https://www.lefigaro.fr/secteur/high-tech/en-quoi-consistent-les-twitter-files-relayes-par-elon-musk-20221206 France], [https://www.bloomberg.co.jp/news/articles/2022-12-07/RMHU6OT1UM0Y01 Japan] and other places), Also, there is already wik pages about the theme in other languages (eg. here is the [https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter%20Files 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 [[WP:Cooperation|supposed to be a Civil space]] independently of the political opinion you may or not have
[[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]] ([[User talk:Meganinja202|talk]]) 04:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:[[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]], if you haven't heard of [[WP:SPA|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. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/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 [https://www.axios.com/2022/12/05/elon-musk-trump-twitter-files-constitution already impacting the 2024 US elections debate] and newer talks about [https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-biden-hack-before-censoring-the-post/ 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 [[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]] ([[User talk:Meganinja202|talk]]) 04:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::Also i said '''MOST''' opinions, not '''ALL''' opinions, there is a difference [[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]] ([[User talk: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|List of ''Green Acres'' episodes]]. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Thriley|Thriley]] ([[User talk:Thriley|talk]]) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:I do agree as well, i think they should had waited more to start this [[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 09:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::[[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MHW2BG4F8U CITATION NEEDED]<span id="Nythar:1670407789999:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 10:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*:::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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' / '''Merge'''. [[User:Binarybits|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) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/QRep2020|contribs]]) </small>
*'''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 [[User:Dragonfangxl|Dragonfangxl]] ([[User talk:Dragonfangxl|talk]]) 04:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Dragonfangxl|Dragonfangxl]] ([[User talk:Dragonfangxl|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dragonfangxl|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small>
*:While the above user has made only a bit over a dozen edits, they haven't edited in this topic until today. {{yo|Nythar}} Why did you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation&diff=1126032220&oldid=1126031996 apply] an SPA tag to this user, when the account seems to have been used for other purposes besides this before? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">[[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">(nest)</span>]]</sub></span> 04:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::[[User:Red-tailed hawk|Red-tailed hawk]], perhaps <nowiki>{{subst:canvassed|username}}</nowiki> would be a better idea? I'm clearly seeing many inactive users arriving here en masse, as can be expected from tweets such like [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1600200000763756544?cxt=HHwWgIDU8YTbhrUsAAAA this one].<span id="Nythar:1670388951897:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 04:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*:::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.
*:::[[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]] ([[User talk:Meganinja202|talk]]) 05:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::::[[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]], what does "afraid of censorship" mean? That is not relevant to the notability of this article.<span id="Nythar:1670390183835:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 05:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*:::::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 [[User:Meganinja202|Meganinja202]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">[[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">(nest)</span>]]</sub></span> 05:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::::[[User:Red-tailed hawk|Red-tailed hawk]], alright, thank you.<span id="Nythar:1670390583276:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 05:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*:Using off-site canvassing to draw attention to a discussion does not mean the topic meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. [[User:EmilyIsTrans|EmilyIsTrans]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:David Barber|David Barber]] ([[User talk:David Barber|talk]]) 05:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:*{{re|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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|here]]; consider reviewing them and amending your reasoning (you might come to the same conclusion you have already!). ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 09:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:*::[[WP:RECENTISM]], [[WP:NOTNEWS]] [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk:D4R1U5|talk]]) 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*'''KEEP'''The 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. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7|2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7]] ([[User talk:2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7|talk]]) 03:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7|2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7]] ([[User talk:2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*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. [[User:Roost|Roost]][[User talk:Roost|<sup>T</sup>]]<sub>[[special:Contribs/Roost|C]]</sub><small>(please '''[[WP:PING|ping]]''' me when replying)</small> 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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. —[[User:Yetisyny|yetisyny]] ([[User talk:Yetisyny|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yetisyny|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, [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/what-exactly-are-twitter-files-and-what-is-its-impact/articleshow/96024844.cms they] [https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-sci-tech/twitter-files-explained-what-are-they-and-what-to-make-of-them/ have] [https://www.outlookindia.com/business/what-are-twitter-files-and-what-secrets-do-they-reveal-about-elon-musk-s-platform--news-242851 got] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/03/elon-musk-twitter-files/ more] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-confirmed-firing-twitter-230439539.html than] [https://www.wionews.com/videos/the-twitter-files-how-twitter-handled-hunter-biden-story-539712 enough] [https://kesq.com/news/2022/12/04/elon-musk-speaks-out-on-twitter-files-release-detailing-platforms-inner-workings/ media] [https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/features/elon-musks-twitter-takeover-added-fuel-to-a-very-public-war-of-ideas-9643031.html coverage] . Thus this article must be included [[User:Alexandria Bucephalous|Alexandria Bucephalous]] ([[User talk:Alexandria Bucephalous|talk]]) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*::[[User:Alexandria Bucephalous|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.<span id="Nythar:1670393629600:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
*:"...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) [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:Sofeshue|Sofeshue]] ([[User talk:Sofeshue|talk]]) 05:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:*{{re|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. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk: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) [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alexandria Bucephalous|Alexandria Bucephalous]] ([[User talk:Alexandria Bucephalous#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alexandria Bucephalous|contribs]]) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*For me, the decisive factor in favor of '''deletion''' is [[WP:10YT|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. -- <b>[[User:Y|Y]] [[User_talk:Y|not?]]</b> 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 [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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 🪩? -- <b>[[User:Y|Y]] [[User_talk:Y|not?]]</b> 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*''' Keep''' easily meets [[WP:GNG]]. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mathmo|Mathmo]] <sup>[[User talk:Mathmo|Talk]]</sup> 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. [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Boscaswell|<span style="color: green">Boscaswell</span>]] [[User talk:Boscaswell|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]] 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. [[User:Wombat-911|Wombat-911]] ([[User talk:Wombat-911|talk]]) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) '''<small>— [[User:Wombat-911|Wombat-911]] ([[User talk:Wombat-911|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wombat-911|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
*:Ironic. [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk:D4R1U5|talk]]) 10:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Wombat-911|Wombat-911]] Can you explain how random strangers on Wikipedia are being "encouraged" to delete this article? Also remember to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], accusing editors of [[WP:COI]] without proof is not a good practice. [[User:Roost|Roost]][[User talk:Roost|<sup>T</sup>]]<sub>[[special:Contribs/Roost|C]]</sub><small>(please '''[[WP:PING|ping]]''' me when replying)</small> 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:TEND]]ness. 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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Alfy32|Alfy32]] ([[User talk:Alfy32|talk]]) 09:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Alfy32|Alfy32]] ([[User talk:Alfy32|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alfy32|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small>
*'''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. '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|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. [[User:Mstf221|Mstf221]] ([[User talk:Mstf221|talk]]) 10:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
**[[User:Mstf221|Mstf221]], maybe if you [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], then you can "{{tq|understand how anyone without a political motivation tries this article to be deleted}}"? Other editors are discussing in good faith, you know.<span id="Nythar:1670410824418:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
* '''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. [[User:Helixdq|Helixdq]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Michaelmalak|Michaelmalak]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Beachy|Beachy]] ([[User talk:Beachy|talk]]) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— '''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Beachy|Beachy]] ([[User talk:Beachy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beachy|contribs]]) has been [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] to this discussion. </small>
*:So many people are arriving here because Elon unleashed his army on this. See [[WP:CAN]]. [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Beachy|Beachy]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:SkywalkerPL|SkywalkerPL]] ([[User talk:SkywalkerPL|talk]]) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
::It's [[WP:NOTAVOTE|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). '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|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, "{{tq|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, {{tq|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. — [[User:Hako9|hako9]] ([[User talk: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). '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:::Isn't much, but this is receiving continuing significant coverage, [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/12/7/musk-says-twitter-lawyer-fired-amid-hunter-biden-laptop-storm], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/white-house-hunter-biden-files-elon-musk-b2239605.html]. — [[User:Hako9|hako9]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:D4R1U5|D4R1U5]] ([[User talk:D4R1U5|talk]]) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::Specifically, the 2nd point of [[WP:NOTNEWS]].<span id="Nythar:1670415789865:WikipediaFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation" class="FTTCmt"> — [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 12:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</span>
* '''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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Maclauren|Maclauren]] ([[User talk:Maclauren#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Maclauren|contribs]]) 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> '''<small>— [[User:Maclauren|Maclauren]] ([[User talk:Maclauren|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Maclauren|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>'''
::Read [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|❄️]]) 12:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Satisifies, [[WP:N]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:GNG]], everything. --[[User:Rsrikanth05|Rsrikanth05]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:AlbusWulfricDumbledore|AlbusWulfricDumbledore]] ([[User talk:AlbusWulfricDumbledore|talk]]) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:There is already consensus to change the title (see {{section link|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. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (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. [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (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.--[[User:Underlying lk|eh bien mon prince]] ([[User talk:Underlying lk|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. [[User:Klausness|Klausness]] ([[User talk:Klausness|talk]]) 14:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
====Arbitrary Break 3====
*:There is already consensus to change the title (see {{section link|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. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk: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. '''<small>—This editor has made over 30,000 edits outside this topic, and finds the added anonymous notes on other commenter's edits obnoxious.</small>'''--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
*:That should totally be a template. Maybe {{t|MPA}}<ref>multiple purpose account</ref>? [[User:Mako001|Mako001]][[Special:Contributions/Mako001| (C) ]][[User talk:Mako001| (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.). [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Kraligor|Kraligor]] ([[User talk: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) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2610:148:1f02:5000:80e5:5837:85bd:ae7a|2610:148:1f02:5000:80e5:5837:85bd:ae7a]] ([[User talk:2610:148:1f02:5000:80e5:5837:85bd:ae7a#top|talk]]) </small>
* '''Keep'''. Easily meets [[WP:GNG]]. Moreover, there's no consensus in the comments above as to why this should get deleted. --[[User:Modi mode|Modi mode]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]|[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>✉</sup>]]</span> 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. [[User:Kwroebuck|Kwroebuck]] ([[User talk:Kwroebuck|talk]]) 14:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Kwroebuck|Kwroebuck]] ([[User talk:Kwroebuck|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kwroebuck|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> ― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 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". [[User:Valery Zapolodov|Valery Zapolodov]] ([[User talk: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'" ― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 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. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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. ― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 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]].) [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 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. [[User:Sewnew|Sewnew]] ([[User talk:Sewnew|talk]]) 15:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)<small>— [[User:Sewnew|Sewnew]] ([[User talk:Sewnew|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sewnew|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> <small>― [[User:Blaze Wolf|<b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>]][[User talk:Blaze Wolf|<sup>Talk</sup>]]<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545</sub> 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''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 [[Special:Contributions/2600:8800:1380:21D:8518:CD5E:A511:11AA|2600:8800:1380:21D:8518:CD5E:A511:11AA]] ([[User talk:2600:8800:1380:21D:8518:CD5E:A511:11AA|talk]]) 15:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
<!--Please add votes above this line-->
{{Reflist-talk}}
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||