Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Twitter Files Investigation: Reply |
No edit summary |
||
Line 75:
*: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)
*'''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)
| |||