Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation

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

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

Twitter Files Investigation

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Twitter Files Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

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

Where to start…

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

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

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

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

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

@Casualdejekyll: Please strike this comment, or clarify that you are speaking only for yourself. I have made about seventy thousand edits, and have spent hundreds of hours trying to write good articles that eliminate bias (whether political or otherwise). I realize that you are deliberately linking to a troll essay in order to get a rise out of people; I have no objection to amusing yourself online, but I do object to you doing so by implying that Wikipedia editors are a bunch of hacks. jp×g 11:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

@Nythar: I am well-acquainted with the essay and stand by what I said: it is disgraceful to the project to say that we are "proud of" being biased when we all know that the overwhelming majority of people see "biased" and think that it means "biased" rather than some convoluted, idiosyncratic fine-print definition of "bias" where it means "doesn't believe in Lysenkoism". jp×g 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think without a healthy level of snark this discussion would be even more of a disaster it already was. But I'll clarify. And It's true that I was speaking as the community when I really shouldn't have been. casualdejekyll 14:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell where to put this, but stop coming here because someone recruited you. It's become impossible to read this debate, it's turned into more of a flame war with people making personal attacks and comparing everyone to a politician they don't like than an actual AfD discussion. Read everything up at the top of the page. Like, actually read it. Not read the name of the policies and infer their meaning.

If you have a problem with Wikipedia's "bias", bring it up on Wikipedia. Do not recruit a massive group of editors to help you. Do not focus solely on changing this "bias". We are here to build an encyclopedia. We do not allow people who only intend to change a perceived "bias" into something that is just biased in an opposite way. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Point 1 is the overriding point, and there shouldn't be a debate beyond that. If the later reveals have a name other than "The Twitter Files," then the page name should change accordingly, but for socio-historical significance alone, this needs to remain a separate and fully present page. The notion that this is (or will remain) solely a piece of sub-content to the Hunter Biden laptop story appears to be short-sighted.

The real crux of the situation is the willful suppression of what turned out to be factual material on the largest microblogging site currently running by a specific group of people in cooperation with elected officials representing one specific political party. Given that those involved with releasing the internal Twitter communiqués (Musk, Taibbi, Weiss, et. al.) are implying there was a pattern of these kinds of decisions within the company, then the later reveals may have nothing to do with the laptop story, at which point Hunter Biden connection would actually become the sub-topic of a larger page focused on of these Twitter releases.

Folding this into the Hunter Biden Laptop topic would be premature. Deleting the page outright would only give credence to those accusing the site of political bias and likely lose future contributions. Case in point: I only knew about the page and this debate because there's an external debate as well due to the notice on the page suggesting Wikipedia wants to delete it outright, and no mention of merging it with another page. ADWNSW (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The level of coverage of an issue by the main stream media can NEVER even be a factor in determining whether a subject should be deleted. Of what use or benefit could Wikipedia be should it be guided by a prejudiced set of institutions in deciding what's relevant? A forum must remain a forum, and all that takes is the continuing return to it by civil contributors and/or any substantial amount of readers. 73.106.38.213 (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep 68.98.61.205 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 68.98.61.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia was never a reliable source in the first place: that was never the point. More importantly, the author of the Twitter Files said that "there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." (CNN)

Oh, and also none of what you said is a policy-based reason for deletion. casualdejekyll 03:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This site should not get in start deleting relevant files. Elon Musk has shared this and despite some media ignoring it, this is another site that should be accessible no matter what, Cwojahn (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, an IPV6 gets an SPA template? First, an IP cannot be an SPA, second, IPV6 addresses change so often, you can't have a damn clue what edits that person has actually made. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Strong Keep I'm not sure how this is even a discussion. This is an event with large cultural and political ramifications. Why would we want to censor this? Briang7723 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Briang7723 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

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

Strong Keep. No mater the ile you side with the Twitter Files Investigation prove the US government used social media to violate the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and silence opposition and Journalists covering content harmful to Presidential candidates. If this is Deleted it goes against everything Wikipedia was created for a free open source collection of articles meant to preserve history against "Revisionist" history.

Matt Taibi Clearly stated this "System" of oppression on twitter was used by both Democrats and Republicans, which in and of it self should serve as a wake up call to the American people and all of Wikipedias users.

If Freedom Fails in the United States of America tyranny will win world wide. Don't let this fall into the "Revisionist" section of history. FreeThinkingPanda (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — FreeThinkingPanda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Lol, I was doing the twinkle thing and creating an afd myself when it popped up with the edit conflict. Shoulda copied my nom rationale and made this easy. Basically, and setting aside the atrocious grammar and writing style, this is not a noteworthy topic in and of itself as there is no "investigation". A series of tweets by a journalist based on info he was given by the CEO is not an "investigation". As reliable sources have covered this bit of a Nothing-Burger (referring to the results), it is certainly usable to cite content in an appropriate article, i.e. it is already mentioned at Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. But it is not a topic by itself. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  The establishment has convinced half the country to voluntarily give up give up their 1st amendment rights in the name tolerance and inclusion and so on. Misinformation used to be known as lying but it would sound stupid if they called it what it is. To say that this isn't a "noteworthy topic" is disingenuous at best. Just more of trying to silence those that don't follow the narrative. 2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1700:9DBE:4000:CAD:B43E:B775:9DBB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

  You're argument breaks down in multiple ways. The idea that you implicitly have about notability should be made explicitly, please do so.

  In fact the main issues that the Taibbi's report is trying to deliver is the lack of credibility by the corporate journalism. Which they completely failed to do and what is the independent journalism supposed and trusted to do. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The level of discourse on Wikipedia is getting insane, surely. The emails that were exposed are real and part of an investigation talked about at every major news outlet. To deem work as “just tweets” displays arrogance and, clearly, a political side. It is disgraceful to add a relevant topic and see it demonised and treated, like most topics in the U.S., a fight of right-left. Wikisempra (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Wikisempra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
• Delete per Zaathras Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep There is no reason why it should be deleted. It seems some vested interests wants to hide an article because it exposes some people doing shady work. 182.69.182.138 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  This is a separate standalone story. Agree it is evolving, hourly. Hunter Biden's laptop forms only a part. People are getting fired from Twitter as a result of controversies... other Media such a New York Post are now attacking Musk for limiting release of the files to Taibbi & Weiss. 49.190.74.223 (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 49.190.74.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, failing the WP:10YT. This "event" was a dud rather than a smoking gun. Many news networks avoided covering this as there is no "there" there. (For instance, the New York Times as of now has published nothing on this.) – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  But that is the main point, the lack of credibility by these corporate media. Why you want to delete something where the report is telling you that these media just don't want to observe and scream the truth. The truth that was happening explained on the Taibbi's report. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  New York Times is deeply engraved in this matter - they don't publish anything on purpose. Thus giving this as argument per deletion is an actual censorship in the end. 83.6.213.108 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  @83.6.213.108: I think you are confused about what is being discussed; most every editor agrees this material ought to be somewhere on the project but many think it should be within another article rather than be its own. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Draft - for now. We don't know which way H. Biden's story will go, once Republicans take over the House, in January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

  this is not mainly about H.Biden story. It's about the censorship that has happened to multiple people at the request of political parties. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Let's look at those policies / pages you cited: WP:NOTNEWS doesn't cover this article (not original coverage for #1, not a routine announcement #2, not a "who's who" #3, not celebrity gossip #4. So that one doesn't apply. WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT state that the page should make sense if a viewer 10 years from now looks at it, it's an argument to modify the page if necessary, not to delete it. None of the pages you cited are a valid policy-based reason to delete the page. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  See this part:

  News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

  This article is part of a larger and more significant controversy. The Twitter Files Investigation or whatever is not a stand-alone event, but instead an event that is part of a different, specific investigation. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete There's a crosswiki pushing of the situation showing as a "historical event" and not as a derivative work of a conspirative report, mainly conduced with two suspicious accounts. The entry was reverted in Spanish Wikipedia. Taichi (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Delete/merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and/or Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. What an effing nothingburger and embarassment for Taibbi to think Twitter taking down revenge porn was a political scandal. But it doesn't need a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  Blocking access to news stories and restricting accounts that linked to them is censorship in its purest form. It was not "taking down revenge porn" as you suggest. It was censoring a news story at the behest of politicians. The Hunter Biden laptop is the example, but politicians pressuring a private company to censor a private news organization and private citizens is the story. 2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete This is a three-sentence description of a self-published internet page. Not Notable. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to the Biden laptop article, it's a nothing event about another nothing event. This isn't even GNG yet, if it will ever be. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete -- under the scope of the laptop article. Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - this self-published blogpost (with a grandiose title) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. If relevant, discourse relating to the blogpost could be covered under the laptop page. I don't think a merge is necessary. Neutrality^talk 01:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  that's the point that what you consider reliable, as report is providing evidence, is not as reliable as it's believed to be. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  this report is about censorship, the corporate media is not covering because that would validate 100% the Taibbi's report. Deleting this page would certainly also valid that there is censorship from multiple ways, now in this case also Wikipedia.

  Tell me, or yourself, why would you cover some story that says that you are the bad one??? Think about it during your free-time/chil-time.

  And the evidence is out there on Taibbi's report. People(political parties) had unlimited access to control who can speak and who can't speak. And, one instance of this power is, NYP article. But the report has more than once instance. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This article is about Twitter and their actions. The article is based upon internally sourced Twitter documents viewed by the reporter. I think it is a mistake to conflate Twitter's active censorship of a news outlet to an addict's abandoned his laptop. Trying to merge this into the Hunter Biden Laptop story is mixing distinct topics in my opinion.

  - I would add to this story by including the the released correspondence from Rep. Ro Khanna which shows there was controversy in blocking the NY Post articles:

  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjA2C14XEAQv2-G?format=png&name=4096x4096 & https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjA2s0gXEAE7vAr?format=png&name=4096x4096

  - I would add Yoel Roth's was intent to block the NY Post Article as "hacked material" first and investigate later. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjA0R6cWIAgdwlk?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 and it appears that his primary goal was to prevent a repeat of the 2016 election, not really blocking "hacked material". Scpo117 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  What are reliable sources? If you mean those that did not onward report the original NYPost article about the Hunter Biden Laptop as it was deemed inconvenient to Biden's election prospects, then not reliable sources perhaps. The Twitter files partially shows how the true NYPost story was suppressed. 2A00:23C8:6A00:FA01:314F:C799:D2A6:43F2 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm also of the opinion that this could very well fit in Hunter Biden laptop controversy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect this is literally what a simple add on to the Twitter page should do. we need to avoid WP:NEWS and WP:RECENT and yeah Hunter Biden laptop controversy also fit. Put a redirect on it problem solved. Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  A merge into a general topic of censorship advanced by both political parties might be in order as this is a very good example of censorship being advanced by a political party 2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The original source (the twitter thread), claims there's no evidence that the government was involved (despite its evident sensationalism). Opinions on censorship by Twitter would belong on the Twitter article itself, but bearing WP:V in mind the focus would need to be on these claims being made without evidence. I.e. This is not a good example of censorship by a party, it is instead an example of a story where media outlets claimed Twitter was enacting censorship for the government with no basis. Aside from the government not having involvement in the brief restrictions on the H.B. Laptop story, it is notable that there is no evidence of censorship presented at all, only requests from the government to take a look at certain tweets. Also notable is these requests came before Biden was incumbent. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not notable enough for its own article and should be in the main Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. "The prevailing consensus has been that the files were underwhelming, not bringing to light anything that was not known about Twitter's handling of the story beforehand." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  Really? You were aware of Baker's involvement and the tight connection between Twitter and the Biden Administration to limit the story? Sorry, but you are dead wrong there. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep Could not disagree more with the Delete or Merge position. The Hunter Biden Laptop story is a minor sub-set to this story. Elon Musk has released internal documentation regarding the workings of Twitter prior to his takeover. People are getting fired. Media outlets attacking Musk, Taibbi and Weiss... Musk is exposing his company to legal jeopardy. This talk section in itself should have a section in the story because , rightly or wrongly, it suggests that Wikipedia has been "infiltrated" in order to support a narrative. This story is more important than the Hunter Biden Paltop Story. If anything, the Laptop Strory should be merged into this story. 49.190.74.223 (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia being infiltrated is not accepted knowledge, and this talk page is not a source (nor is it notable WP:N enough for a section) - regardless of whether your belief is true and this talk page suggests infiltration by nameless nefarious actors, Wikipedia is a collection of accepted knowledge and not a collection of what editors think is fact. As for this being a minor subset of this story, you are correct, and there is already an article covering this Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. 58.178.108.163 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There was still lots of news coverage and debate, thus it's notable, whether or not it was considered underwhelming by many (reliable sources claiming this can be cited in the article). That's not a valid reason to delete the article. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete This was generally ignored by the media (with good reason) and thus failed to establish notability. There-being (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect, CNN covered it (one of the first search hits) https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/12/03/smr-musk-taibbi-twitter-files.cnn as well as many other reliable sources discussed and debated it (including on national TV). Notability is clearly established, just because you don't like it (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not a reason to delete a page. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  STAY/MERGE - There are basicly whole emails of USA Gov/DMC censoring oponents and claiming that 1st amendment can be ignored when it fits them! Its basicly 2nd biggest thing after Watergate. Just the proof enough are that leftits propaganda outlets like CNN/ MSNBC etc are not covering on it is proof enough. Anyone who read the mails with the full names of the ppl there (showing who is reponscible for what) and says its nothing noteworthy is either a leftist censor shill or just lying and never read it. 89.151.45.125 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete I would suggest a merge, but there's not really anything here. Even as a stub it suffers from being unsourced in some places and poorly sourced in others, suggesting a lack of notability. It also doesn't have a clearly defined topic. Is this about an investigation, or is this about a Substack article? While the title suggests the former and the lede suggests the latter, the content of the article is actually about neither. There is no investigation, and the article lacks any notable information about what the self-published article had to offer. The original revision was much larger than the current one because once you trim out the poorly written editorialized sensationalism there's not really anything left.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Keep. All that is necessary to be a "valid vote" (hint: it doesn't actually go by voting) is the single word "Keep". That you do not like the reasons given does not alter that fact. 72.42.157.24 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's actually not how it works. The closer will evaluate the arguments, particularly those that cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to determine the consensus, not the numbers on each "side". Schazjmd (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Did you read the part where I said "(hint: it doesn't actually go by voting)" or were you in too much of a hurry to use the "aaaaactually" schitck to do that? 72.42.157.24 (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The closer will evaluate the arguments, particularly those that cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to determine the consensus

  Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  As said at the top, one should assume (and speak in) good faith in these discussions. Assuming you were not talking about the topic, but instead attacking Wikipedia's resolution system, would not be assuming good faith. Please make comments only if you're interested in contributing to the discussion rather than demeaning contributors.58.178.108.163 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Merge Reasoning revolves around WP:NOPAGE. It's notable, but having it in the laptop controversy article would provide more context and be better covered there. Cable10291 (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with to the article about the laptop controversy. Deletion isn't merited as their is some coverage but this should not be its own page either. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge most of the content (or lack thereof) should fit into the Laptop article, and it should also get a section in the History of Twitter or Musk acquisition articles. Musk aligning with a Trump conspiracy theory and giving privileged access to increasingly right-wing journalists is honestly more notable than the story itself. --jonas (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge: Content reliant on the laptop controversy. I can imagine a world where this general concept becomes its own article, but we would need a lot more than what we already have. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: This publication itself - the act of publication per se and its manner - and its content are both highly relevant to on-going events concerning high-level US politics. The related events will likely play an important role in announced and upcoming impeachment proceedings against the current POTUS and VPOTUS. They may also play an important role in the evolution of key legislation relevant to the operation and legal protection of Internet platforms, with the potential to directly impact Wikipedia itself. It is therefore essential - and possibly crucial to its survival - that Wikipedia proves on this occasion its unimpeachable commitment to transparency and impartiality and its ability to police without fail attempts to censor and temper with its content. Not only this article must NOT be deleted, it must be afforded the most extensive level of protection. Arugia (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Arugia has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  So what? The public doesn't have the right to comment? Oh, I get it, only the few get to decide what is or is not relevant. Go ahead, delete it and I promise you the Wikipedia will come to regret that decision. You want to remain relevant? Don't censor it. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Maybe user Arugia was making the point that if Wikipedia comes down on the side of pro censorship that would be harmful to Wikipedia's long term future survival. Mathmo ^Talk 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep: The fact that some users who voted “Delete” mentioned that a valid reason was that ’The New York Times did not publish “very detailed” articles regarding the Twitter Files is truly amazing. I do not mean to offend anyone, but so many users are exuding lack of intelligence, it is unreal to see some saying “let’s see how it plays out”. What do you mean? This is a serious issue. Is ‘The New York Times the reference of journalism? All are valid. The purpose of the files was to expose how corrupt the journalistic world is becoming, that includes US, Wikipedia. If you are concerned about the “optics” think that there are more emails coming. For anyone on the outside deleting this very important article just shows that the right-wing, which I am no fan of, is right in regards to suppressing content. Rivelinp (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rivelinp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  well said 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. The Twitter files are ongoing with relevant factual information. Gensao (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I think the topic is worthy of keeping, although it would need a serious expansion in the coming weeks. If it *has* to be deleted, I would begrudgingly support a merge into a preexisting article dealing with Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter. EytanMelech (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep IMO this is worth keeping as it has been indicated that there will be more releases. If at that stage it is still not worth not keeping, it may be merged into either Elon Musk's take over of Twitter or the Hunter Biden's laptop story. Chirag (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event to pretend otherwise is dishonest. Varying partisan opinions can be made about the event, but users deserve the newsorthy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete / Merge. The material here can be covered adequately in the Hunter Biden laptop article and/or the article on Matt Taibbi. There's no reason for a tweet thread to have its own stand-alone article. Binarybits (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep this is still developing, there is apparently more (potentially not related to the laptop story) that will be released in the future. It's a separate event from the laptop controversy, happening years later. Whatever your opinion on the matter, it is still a notable event (hundreds of thousands of likes, not to mention discussion/views) in the story of the Twitter takeover and subsequent reaction to the previous administration. Anyone can add cited information about how other groups of people didn't think it was notable.
• Keep This is an ongoing story and is already notable. There's no reason it shouldn't have it's own page. Slugiscool99 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Slugiscool99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Noteworthy and now independent of Taibbi and has outgrown the original "Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy" and has grown to the Trump and Biden administration colluding with a private entity to restrict civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeeeeeep (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment - while not meeting the definition of a "single purpose account", this account has been largely inactive until this AfD. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep it's a notable article, if you not have any proper explanation stay away from deletion nomination. 111.119.178.138 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Delete WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, failing WP:10YT. At the very best, possibly a mention in the laptop article. Bearing in mind WP:BNS as well. Equine-man (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event. Deleting would show Wikipedia's true bias. Jzoch2 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Jzoch2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep there’s enough coverage of this to pass WP:GNG. The content is still being covered by plenty of reliable sources. 2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep.  This is a developing story, with well-established journalists – Taibbi former Rolling Stone editor, and author of several books, and Bari Weis formerly of the New York Times.   While this story clearly needs more development, we are only at the beginning.  There is every reason to believe more is coming.  What we have seen so far shows significant malfeasance on the part of Twitter, the FBI, and political campaigns.  Reasoning that states “delete this article  because the story is a dud according to the media”, should be self-canceling.  That same media told us the story was Russian disinformation.   HarryRAlexander (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — HarryRAlexander (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Noteworthy article, can surely be expanded.--Sakiv (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a story that is well sourced and important. It deals with fundamental first amendment rights. Government actors worked with a private company to censor speech, which is illegal if done directly. And doing this just before an election, to the benefit of one candidate over the other, elevates the importance of this story. Mainstream media, of course, is trying to ignore this story as it reflects poorly on them. The NYT, WAPO, etc. took TWO years to bother to determine that the laptop was legitimate. They took the statements of 40 ex-intel officers that it "had the hallmarks of a Russian information operation" and discredited the story. 47.188.38.194 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 47.188.38.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep certainly relevant. Please expand. Ninety Mile Beach (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - While not meeting the technicalities of a single-purpose account, user Ninety Mile Beach has been largely inactive until this entry was made. ValarianB (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Merge with the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Deletion isn't merited as the information within this article is duly encyclopedic. On the other hand, if editors expand it in line with Wikipedia's policies it can be kept. As it stands it is too short to justify being kept as a self-contained article.MurrayScience (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

• Keep As of now, a Google search for "Twitter Files" reveals articles from National Review, NBC News, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN, Axios, Washington Post, WIRED, Fox News, Reuters, Forbes, and yes, the New York Times, and on and on. Any earlier argument that this event did not receive media coverage is moot (fortunate that we did not yet rush to deletion on that basis). Mmurrian (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Mmurrian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  well written and researched 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2603:8000:143:C86A:395E:47A7:3665:70BC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Heavily covered in mainstream media: NYT, USA Today, CNN. The "delete" arguments are based on subjective evaluations of noteworthyness and are entirely unconvincing in the face of significant coverage in reliable sources. Should probably be renamed to Twitter Files. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge per above votes and per WP:RECENTISM. Much of the above votes seem to be breaches of various WP:ATA arguments seeping in from Twitter posts, and don't even engage with the notability aspect of it - yes, it's 100% notable enough to be included in a page, but not as a stand-alone article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Am glad you agree this is a 100% notable topic, but what evidence if any supports your argument that this doesn't support a standalone article??

  As clearly all evidence points in the opposite direction.

  For instance there is waaaay past a thousand words in this article already! (and it is only growing)

  That is not something which should be a small footnote as part of a larger article. Mathmo ^Talk 10:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Merge - Per Ser! et al. There is no significant coverage across MSM to deserve a standalone page and get past the barrier set by NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No significant coverage? The NYT, Washington Post, CNN and many others have articles on this subject. If that doesnt qualify, what would? Bonewah (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

    Maybe we should just merge all of wikipedia into one single web page? As nothing on it seems to meet the very high barrier of entry they've invented. Mathmo ^Talk 10:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep (eventually Merge) - the article is well stated and definitely unbiased. Eventually this should probably be merged to the results of the outcome of the story (either expanding the discussion of Hunter Biden's Laptop or Twitter's oversight of their content) Rwezowicz (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rwezowicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge. As others have said this isn't particularly noteworthy no matter how much some people insist it is. It's a footnote at most, stretched into an entire article. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Archimedes157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Well over a thousand words already is merely "a footnote"?? Please explain the logic of your statement. As the facts are in complete contradiction to it. Mathmo ^Talk 10:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Internet. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Note for the closing admin. Single-purpose accounts tagged, plus 2 sleepers with long inactivity til this Afd. The IPs are to numerous to tag as well, but their entries are in the same boat of meritless keep votes. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Could they at least be struck? Would make it easier for curious editors like me to see what the current general consensus is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe so. Usually I've just seen SPAs denoted with the tag so the closing admin knows. I've also tagged another dormant one. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  Consensus is not ascertained by a beancount, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Through that lens, I don't see the various lower-quality arguments offered by newer users and IPs as being a hindrance in determining consensus here, and (while there are very few that are good arguments) I would object to summarily removing their comments simply on the basis that they are new users or anonymous users; doing so is inconsistent with WP:TPO and is not warranted from an WP:IAR perspective at this juncture. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh no I"m aware. It's just that the mass amount of low-quality arguments makes it hard for me to see the legit comments. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The general consensus is a solid delete at this point. It would be easier without the cruft, but then we'd have to deal with the misbegotten "my 1st amendment rights!" spam along with the vote spam. Hopefully the Afd will be semi-protected soon. ValarianB (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Popular culture. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy. There is no reason why this straw fire cannot be given what limited attention it deserves within the confines of the article on the larger issue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Misuse of Twitter moderation policies in order to affect elections is a different issue than whether or not Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's conduit for illegal payments. You can have any outcome on the Hunter Biden issues and not affect the notability or importance of whether Twitter has been tilting the public square in favor of certain political factions. TMLutas (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TMLutas (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

  I dislike all these " canvassed " tags with zero evidence to support it. They're just slurs being thrown at those they disagree with.

  And I agree, the Biden latop and the corruption in the Biden family is a very different topic to Twitter Censorship/Manipulations. (although sure, I'd agree, they're certainly overlapping topics) Mathmo ^Talk 10:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Pretty easily passes wp:GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." NYT, BBC and more are all independent of the source and have all covered the topic. User:King of Hearts is right, significant coverage overrides the subjective opinion that this is a 'nothingburger'. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per King of Hearts, easily notable. A merge might be reasonable, but would be best to wait until things have calmed down and the full scope is better understood. Legoktm (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is the correct answer. The fact that people seek to delete it so soon after initial creation, rather than allow the article to naturally evolve, shows that it is less a concern of a less notable topic and more or less a personal opinion. I think a merge *could* be useful, but only time will tell if this becomes big enough to keep on its own. EytanMelech (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep for the irony. We all know this will ultimately be kept in some form (maybe with an intermediate deletion, then undeletion, then rename). The existence of multiple reliable sources saying there's nothing of significance (like this) is actual proof there is something signficant to cover. Those most wanting to keep the article, especially those coming off Twitter, in support of Musk, will ultimately hate and despise the article this becomes. Those wishing to delete it now, will ultimately accept its inclusion, but will work to make a lengthy article explaining how there is nothing to see here. Nobody will get what they want. Everybody on all sides of Wikipedia and Twitter will work together, to showcase the worst of Wikipedia and Twitter. All efforts to remove perceived garbage, will result in amplification of the same. --Rob (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The existence of multiple reliable sources saying there's nothing of significance (like this) is actual proof there is something signficant to cover. ... Everybody on all sides of Wikipedia and Twitter will work together, to showcase the worst of Wikipedia and Twitter.

  Indeed. At least the Washington Post eventually came out and confirmed that the originally-suppressed Laptop Story was in fact true -- long after the fact. 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Meets GNG and V, articles survive daily with far less sourcing and far less notable participants than 2 US Presidential campaigns, the US government, the world's richest man and one of the world's top social media platforms Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy - nothing particularly independently notable and we arent a newsticker (per WP:NOTNEWS). What's more, some of the above arguments are baffling. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The "files" are about data allegedly from the laptop hack, no reason this shouldn't just be a section in the larger article about this. Wish I had some popcorn rn. DPS2004 (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is a misstatement of what the files are, which are corporate communications of Twitter employees and arguments about how Twitter moderation policies were being used/misused. TMLutas (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, it makes as much sense (next to none!) to merge this article with the Biden Laptop article as it does with a bunch of other articles (Big Tech / Internet Censorship / Deplatforming / Twitter suspensions / etc etc etc!!)

  But no, Twitter Files is it's own article! Mathmo ^Talk 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this discussion should be semi-protected or protected, seeing as the Muskrat himself has posted about this discussion on Twitter and caused a brigade of his fans. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  I don't think it's absurd to say a page should be protected when it's under a brigade from people trying to push an agenda. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Di (they-them): The Muskrat himself has posted about this.

  For Wikipedia WP:NEUTRAL rules, insulting celebrities, (Elon Musk) in this case goes against these rules. If you’re on about agendas, maybe you shouldn’t be trying to push your own feelings about high profile people on a website that should be promoting neutrality, but high profile editors like you insulting these people has you yourself trying to push an agenda. It’s extremely hypocritical. Realise your double standards, this has been persistent among loads of high profile editors on this website. 92.10.171.52 (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 92.10.171.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Yes indeed, perhaps anybody who uses an insulting and biased phrase such as "Muskrat" is only here because they themselves have been "canvassed".... Mathmo ^Talk 10:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  If a lot of people care about it, that makes it all the more important to allow the conversation time. 172.78.61.241 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 172.78.61.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge I don't see how this meets notability standards in its own right. But it's notable enough to the Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal that it deserves a section there. It could always be spun out as its own if Taibbi or Weiss release more information and it becomes more notable. Dan.Toler (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  Apparently NYT, Washington Post, CNN and many others no longer count towards notability in this brave new world of wikipedia in late 2022. Mathmo ^Talk 11:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Mathmo, read WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YEARS. "Reliable sources" is not the only policy we use when deciding if an article should be deleted. Again, your arguments are not sufficiently convincing. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  For you to be able to cite these policies as useful and relevant, you either need to provide some proof of your claims or have a crystal ball. (if you do have one... please give me some useful stock tips! Thanks) Mathmo ^Talk 11:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep the events in question have significant political and cultural ramifications. It's impossible to tell at this point if the impact will increase or decrease over time, but deleting now when it's most relevant would be a huge disservice to anyone looking for information on the subject. Merging is not ideal, as the Biden laptop story is only an example of the issues brought to light by the Twitter Files. The subject of the Twitter Files is the existence of, and ethical implications of, cooperation between government and social media. Biden's laptop is the key example, but it is not the exclusive idea to the point that the Twitter Files are a subsection of that controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.61.241 (talk) — 172.78.61.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge with Hunter Biden laptop controversy - this is pretty much an attempt to *create* a story rather than document it. No reason for stand alone article. Also, y’all know this is getting brigaded like crazy (for keeping) by alt right and far right accounts on twitter and other social media, right? Probably should just strike any !votes by newish or sleeper accounts. Volunteer Marek 20:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Please try to explain why it deserves a merge specifically with the Biden Laptop Scandal and not any of many many other wikipedia topics such as Big Tech / Internet Censorship / Deplatforming / Twitter suspensions / etc etc etc??

  Because the Twitter Files is not specifically only about a laptop, and also touches upon all those many other topics as well.

  Also please explain how on earth well over a thousand plus words somehow are meant to just be a small footnote in an article rather than its own standalone article??? Mathmo ^Talk 11:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  They didn't say this article should be turned into a "footnote". There's a major difference between footnotes and sections. And the "Twitter Files" are for the most part about Hunter Biden's laptop. Even if there's a minor mention of something else (for which you'll need a reference), that doesn't prove that this needs a stand-alone article. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy merge/delete - can easily be expanded in Hunter Biden laptop controversy. also I am noticing a lot of these Keep options seem to be stemming from WP:SPA accounts or troll IPs leaning towards right-wing views and language. Might be wise to RFP this AfD since as stated above it’s been posted on Twitter itself and is almost certainly a target by right-wingers trying to influence the outcome with dubious reasoning. This was nothing more then a dud. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Twitter publicly airing its dirty laundry on how it handles censorship requests is a completely separate issue from whether Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's bag man for corrupt payments. The salaciousness of Hunter Biden's laptop contents draws clicks. The misuse of moderation policies according to current Twitter ownership is only tangentially related. TMLutas (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Let's review WP:GNG together: 1. Presume it deserves an article due to existing cited coverage by NBC News, NY Post, Politico, USA Today, etc. 2. Significant coverage is shown with sources cited; Some comments in this AfD discussion imply that the coverage isn't sufficiently thorough i.e., WP:NOR, but that assertion (implicit or not) does not appear objective. 3. Reliability is confirmed by the variety of frequently used secondary sources. 4. All sources are secondary and 5. Independent of the subject. WP:GNG concludes with some general guidance to use if some of these notability guidelines are not met, but that does not apply since all are met. If editors truly wish to remove this page, I recommend first revising our general notability guidelines to support the deletion. I also recommend a thorough discussion of this AfD, as I am noticing a lot of these (speedy) Delete options seem to be stemming from WP:SPA accounts or troll IPs leaning towards left-wing views and language Calebb (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean the (speedy) keep ones? None of the delete votes have been from IPs, and all six of the six SPAs (and all of the IPs) have voted keep. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• This article should not be deleted because it really happened. Representatives of our government conspired with a private company to stifle the free speech of the very citizens they were elected by. It was motivated by a desire to control the narrative just days before a presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:2f60:fc22:55db:35a7:d8b (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:1700:8480:2f60:fc22:55db:35a7:d8b (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - It's notable and worthy of it's own article. Calling someone a SPA is not much different than biting newcomers. These are people becoming interested in the processes of wiki, it should be encouraged. Nweil (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Notability is, quite literally, an issue of how many sources exist. If you claim it's notable, prove it by showing sources in reputable media. DS (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep - I'm not opposed to a merge to some other topic, but when the question is "is this subject notable" the answer appears to be "yes". Some sources are only a few hours old and I'd imagine more will come, but the article currently meets WP:GNG. I don't see a rationale for deletion with the current state of available sourcing in mind (most of which don't appear to have existed at the time this AfD began), and the article being a "disaster" is a surmountable problem that can be fixed via editing rather than deletion. I don't want to just list every source but in addition to the NBC article I linked, it's got coverage in NYTimes, Axois, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, and lots more. - Aoidh (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I've done an initial pass and moved the most obviously off-topic comments to the talkpage. This does not necessarily mean I think every comment above this one is on-topic, just that I've, again, gotten the most obvious ones. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Per WP:GNG, the article meets notability guidelines. It's a significant and rapidly unfolding news story with substantial implications for several public figures. It has been reported on by most major news outlets. If there are quality issues with the article, those can be resolved and, based on the high edit rate, will be resolved sooner rather than later. Deleting it would serve no purpose, as it would just need to be created again anyway. Merging it with the laptop article would be a waste of time and hinder efforts to improve quality, since it would need to be unmerged soon thereafter because it has already been announced that more Twitter Files are going to be published soon unrelated to the laptop, and that it is intended to be a regular thing, covering different aspects of the overall topic of coordination between political interests and Twitter to perform censorship. DanielDeibler (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep as this clearly meets GNG and as Aoidh notes there is plenty of sourcing. As this appears to be ongoing, I would expect more sourcing to follow. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. This content is due, and the question is whether it merits a standalone article or not. It might be WP:TOOSOON for the standalone article though. But I suspect that by the time this AFD expires, we might have a clearer picture. MarioGom (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given recent developments, such as a second release being handled by Bari Weiss, Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files is not a good merge target anymore. Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations still is, although it might fall short for things such as Jim Baker role, etc. With 13 reliable sources cited in the article, and many more being published in the last ~12 hours, this is looking really good in terms of WP:GNG. It's hard to assess if WP:PERSISTENCE will be met, but I doubt it'll change things in the future given the amount and depth of already existing coverage. MarioGom (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep. This subject meets our general notability requirements and is still an ongoing current event. There is enough media coverage to justify its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. The Hunter laptop controversy is just the first story of the Twitter Files investigation, but this event is notable already based on the unusual nature of this investigation. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Consider the opening phrase: "The Twitter Files are a series of internal Twitter documents". This opening establishes that The Twitter Files (hereinafter TTF) are a discrete entity that are not a subset of any other subject. The initial TTF release relates to the discussions about one multi-faceted decision (limiting the reach of one NY Post story and suspending the Post's account), but Mr. Musk promises that additional TTF releases are forthcoming concerning other heretofore unconfirmed or private communications and decisions e.g. the banning of the account of The Babylon Bee satire site. It's troubling to see Wikipedia itself seeming to bend its collective knee to the profane temper tantrums of NBC's Ben Collins and his ilk than to understand the need to retain this entryMusicmax (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• This article should be kept. This is a significant story. Lethalox (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to avoid further edit-warring about this, for those assisting in clerking this discussion: While this is not what I would call a good !vote (that is to say, it doesn't give the closer(s) much to consider), it is on-topic, and should not be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep Clearly meets GNG. Absurd that this is even listed here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly a notable topic, easily meeting GNG to all but the most politically biased Wikipedia editors. The topic is related to a whole set of other political topics, and as such an article summarizing these disclosures from Twitter will serve as a useful reference. Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The investigation is ongoing, with more news coming out in the last hour. There is plenty of coverage to meet the GNG. The only argument I can see being made for it's removal is it being celebrity gossip. That might be the case if the government had not colluded with twitter to remove the story just prior to an election. Sblack4 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Sblack4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Why is this being deleted? It meets GNG. This is a notable topic. This is not the time to play political partisan. Xenomancer (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to Matt_Taibbi#Twitter_Files and Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Social_media_corporations. Having a full article violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. So far, the investigations haven't amounted to anything. NBC News reported that it "turned out to yield little new information". Also, there is no long-term effects. Yes, lots of news sources are reporting on it, but will they report on them in 2025? In 2030? Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge with the Hunter Biden controversy article. Even if you regard Twitter having removed some Hunter Biden revenge porn as something controversial, there is nothing in this article that stands alone from the main Hunter Biden one. Maybe if more content emerges and gets covered, it can be its own controversy page, but it should probably have a more descriptive name. "Twitter files controversy"? "Internal Twitter communications controversy"? If we do end up keeping it, in just its current form, then it definitely needs a move. I'd suggest something like "Twitter deletion of Hunter Biden revenge porn controversy". -Kieran (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Can you show a single source that is used referring to this being about revenge porn? I'm aware of this being a common twitter refrain but looking at all the sources, they discuss removal of content at request of Dem campaign, imply other requests from Republican campaign and document a struggle to understand rationale for suppressing the NYPost story. This is beyond the laptop now and is about the internal governance of one of the world's largest social media companies. Slywriter (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  • Keep This isn't the place for censorship. And Wikipedia is not 'News', it's a library of documented facts, which happens to include events. Your level of interest, and you personal opinions, are irrelevant to it. 115.69.29.89 (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 115.69.29.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

• Merge, as others have said, with the Hunter Biden article (or maybe just put it under a controversy section on Twitter or something similar). While I feel that this is news, therefore covered by WP:NOTNEWS, (and is backed up appropriately by the reliable sources on the page's citations), it's not detailed or specific enough to have its own page. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge When in doubt (which this discussion shows), keep, or merge if the topic of the unveil itself is found deeply non-topical (beyond me!). Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Why not? And NOTCENSORED makes no sense as an argument, as Matt Taibbi#Twitter Files isn't going anywhere, and I imagine this can be discussed at other pages as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  From what I've seen, no one who is suggesting merge has suggested an appropriate article to merge it to. Do you have a suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I know it's easy to miss in this massive discussion, but multiple people have suggested Hunter Biden laptop controversy and Matt Taibbi#Twitter Files. casualdejekyll 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't miss those suggestions. As stated, neither fits the bill. The Twitter Files is not about Hunter's laptop, and it's not exclusively a Matt Taibbi thing. I'm not opposed to a merge, but these two articles are not viable options. Got another suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  The Twitter Files is not about Hunter's laptop is a statement I'd dispute - it's about a New York Post article about Hunter's laptop, which is pretty much the same thing. casualdejekyll 01:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  This just bolsters the argument that we need an article to explain it to people who don't understand this is not about Hunter. The first release was not exclusively about Hunter... and there are more installments to come. Seems like a good move to wait it out and then see where it best fits if indeed it becomes appropriate to be merged somewhere. Do you have a suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seems like a good move to wait it out and then see where it best fits if indeed it becomes appropriate to be merged somewhere. - Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Notability (events) etc, the "waiting it out" is more of a question of waiting to see if it becomes definitely appropriate to split. casualdejekyll 01:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  It's already appropriate to split because there is no existing article that it properly fits in. Do you have a suggestion? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  As I've said multiple times already, Hunter Biden laptop controversy is a great fit. Your response to me claiming "it's about a New York Post article about Hunter's laptop" was that "it's not about Hunter", when it... looks like it is? This argument is going in circles. casualdejekyll 01:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hunter Biden laptop controversy is only a small part of this as many here other than me have pointed out. It's a terrible fit. Any other suggestions? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  That is a lot like saying that we should restore Willy on Wheels's vandalism to the main page because an erect penis is notable and we aren't censored. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  It had a signficant amount of coverage and debate in reliable sources like CNN, so it is notable and should have it's own article. Yes if some Wikipedia vandal had major coverage the article about that vandalism can have an article, indeed there is at least one such article Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident about a notable Wikipedia hoax incident (not the hoax itself, but the article about the hoax. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment for closing admin: The following keep accounts were inactive for extended periods or appear to be single-purpose/canvassed: TMLutas (3 edits in 12 months preceding, 5 here), Capt. Milokan (2 edits in last 12 months), Xenomancer (8 edits in last five years, 3 here), Sblack4 (confirmed sock), Tvaughan1 (no edits between June 2021 and this AfD), Bbny-wiki-editor (4 edits in 12 months preceding), Moses963 (sole edit), DanielDeibler (no other edits in last 10 years), 172.78.61.241 (sole IP edit), Jimmy zed0 (sole edit), 73.223.59.4 (sole IP edit), 68.98.61.205 (sole IP edit), AlfieNewman52 (two other edits, extreme UNCIVIL), Ninety Mile Beach (8 other edits in last 10 years, but also semi-active on German Wiki), 111.119.178.138 (9 edits in preceding 12 months, repeatedly abused IP address), HarryRAlexander (9 other edits), 2605:B100:10D:2ED2:9D7A:A7AE:3150:FA85 (1 other edit), Peregrine Fisher (1 other edit in preceding 12 months). It seems that the vast majority of Keep votes come from users that match this profile. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge. Does not warrant a separate article, but notable enough to be mentioned in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. Ultimograph5 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge. I second that does not warrant a separate article, but is notable enough to be mentioned in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article (this vote was corrected as instructed by another contributor). Perenista (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Perenista (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  FYI, the vote is on whether or not to keep the article, not the content. If you believe we should move the content into the Hunter Biden laptop article (which I fully agree with by the way), that would be a Merge vote. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  WP:ITSNOTABLE coming from a relatively-inactive sysop is an interesting position.. especially coming from someone who hasn't !voted in an AfD in five years... And for that matter, the last one before that was ten years ago. Perhaps standards have changed. casualdejekyll 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Never realized that WP:ITSNOTABLE was a specific policy/essay, but I'm glad it is. I think a lot of the replies here could be considered WP:ITSNOTABLE (or "it's not notable"). Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep There was lots of news coverage and debate in reliable sources about this. A lot of arguments to delete are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Then you argue against those individually. "Some arguments for X are bad" doesn't mean that "All arguments for X are bad". Among Us for POTUS (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I did respond to some comments, but bascially all the delete arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, incorrect claims it had no signficant news coverage (which is flat-out false, it was discussed in many major sources like CNN), or just citing random policies without explaining how they apply. What matters is that this topic had signficant coverage on national TV and was the subject of much debate, which means it's notable regardless of how imporant the files themselves actually are. The debate of whether the files are imporant or underwhelming is something the article can discuss (citing reliable sources as necessary). If something not politically charged got this much attention for sure there would be an article about it and it wouldn't have been nominated for deletion. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:BDA5:DBF1:F36E:8AA0 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  You have not precisely directed us towards anything that, according to policy, suggests this topic isn't wholly subordinate to a larger topic. I was on the other side of a similar debate a couple months ago defending an article I had created. If you would like, you can see how a similar debate occurs outside the culture war here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• This is a critical piece of information. Please keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.136.46 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 99.179.136.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

Arbitrary Break 2

• Keep We know more Twitter Files are planned to be released, which means more information will be added. Having a place for that information will prevent clutter and duplicate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.114.239 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 73.240.114.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

  List of conspiracy theories?... Seriously

  To quote your self serving page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• KEEPThe Twitter files is evidence that Twitter colluded with government in a bias manner. Wikipedia will become even more irrelevant as a reliable source of information if it deletes this. 2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:6C40:6300:EDE:B1C3:DE37:1D01:2FE7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• This is a canvassed nightmare but I will give my 2 cents: Merge to Hunter Biden laptop controversy per Wikipedia:Recentism. This sounds like a breaking news that is going to die off in a few days. I think it is too soon to make a decision on notability. I recommend restoring the article if the topic continues to have more coverage and there are new discoveries. I definitely oppose deletion because a lot of the article are now in good quality and well-sourced. This can go to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy without any changes. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 05:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think Wikipedia:Recentism is relevant here at all. And clearly the person who nominated this article for deletion was very trigger happy in that they nominated it for deletion only a half hour after it was created and rushed in too fast. I'd suggest that those people who somehow strangely think this topic suffers from Wikipedia:Recentism ought to wait for a few weeks, or even better a few months, to see if their crystal ball predictions turn out to be true (how though, I can't see any path forward to that for them). If they're right, then sure, at that point in time then I too would support a merger. But at the present time, there is as yet no basis on which to support a merger. Mathmo ^Talk 10:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per Muboshgu. This fails Wikipedia:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and other tests, and there already is an article at Hunter Biden laptop controversy for covering this topic. This is just a small detail in the Hunter Biden laptop controversy and not really deserving of its own article. A Substack post that doesn’t get major media coverage except for a few outlets devoting a tiny amount of space to trying to debunk it is not notable. Also this AfD discussion is being canvassed on Twitter by people who want to keep this article. The facts of the matter are, the content from that laptop violated Twitter rules against revenge porn and Twitter staff discussed what to do before arriving at what ended up being a fairly straightforward conclusion based on their rules and laws against revenge porn (i.e. posting stolen pictures or videos of someone else nude without permission). A social media company following its own rules and the law is not worthy of an encyclopedia article every time it happens or else we would have endless separate articles about things such as Kanye West’s most recent Twitter suspension that could just be merged into the articles about the people in question, if there is even any encyclopedia-quality content worth merging in the first place, which there is not here. —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  A "small detail" ? This article lists an instance of a corporation explicitly engaging in censorship which some think is unjustified. Additionally I strongly disagree with you when you say that The Twitter Files have not got extensive media coverage, they have got more than enough media coverage . Thus this article must be included Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Alexandria Bucephalous, as I stated above, it doesn't matter how many news outlets have articles on this. Since you're relatively new here, I recommend you read WP:RECENTISM, which explains a common issue on Wikipedia, where editors will justify the existence of an article just because there are "lots of sources". Will this actually be reported on next year? The year after? In ten years? How significant is this? Questions like these could help. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  "...the content from that laptop violated Twitter rules against revenge porn..."

  Not true at all. And anybody with even a very superficial knowledge of the Biden Laptop Scandal would know that statement was flat out false. As it was not scandalous the pictures were being censored, but that even links to the published news stories on this were being censored and accounts sharing it were being banned!!! Heck, people couldn't even share the news story links in their DMs!! (that's a level of censorship on twitter that had never been seen before for this type of material) Mathmo ^Talk 10:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Censorship, political bias, underhand maneuvers of social platforms have always been there for a long time and are widely known. The Twitter files, even if they are true, merely reinforce such facts and CONTAIN NOTHING NEW. Might as well yet be another coordinated attack on democracy and smear campaign against the leftists by Musk. Sofeshue (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

"Nothing new"??? The Twitter Files were shocking even for those people who have been following these types of new stories for years, let alone people who haven't been hearing about it. (which is most people, most people are blissfully unaware of just how much censorship is going on) Mathmo ^Talk 10:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep* The Twitter Files have allegedly revealed how the platform could be influenced by outside parties to censor posts. Supplementally the topic has been covered by multiple news organisations. While the total impact of the revelations can be debated, what is incontrovertible is that this page must stay in interests of fairness and transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria Bucephalous (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge or delete (EC). Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, we don't need to document every event that gets coverage (or even lots of coverage), much less give everything its own standalone article. Per PAGEDECIDE, we can deny independent articles on topics even if they meet GNG and don't violate NOT; and in this case, the subject doesn't even clearly pass NOT as we have no indication it is of enduring importance. JoelleJay (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• For me, the decisive factor in favor of deletion is the 10 year test as others have mentioned. The mere presence of immediate reporting doesn’t mean that readers will be able to make sense of the topic very soon after our low attention span news cycle moves on. The broader discussion on the numerous political conspiracies of our day surely has a place in this encyclopedia, but in that article this ripple will be but a single sentence, if that much. -- Y not? 06:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  This topic is clearly relevant today, which is when you and I are discussing this. But you claim to have a crystal ball to claim that somehow in ten years time this will all be seen as so very irrelevant it deserves to be deleted? Sorry, but no WP:CRYSTALBALL Mathmo ^Talk 10:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That’s exactly the point — if we’re having this conversation in a month, this is just a forgotten specific projectile in the overall battle that is our lamentable conspiratorial political discourse. This is an encyclopedia, not The New York Post, we have a different scope here. Of course that’s just my judgment about an appropriate level of granularity for this encyclopedia, but this is fine because I’m its editor. Look, if these “Twitter files” get deleted today, but somehow end up as significant to history as the Pentagon Papers or the Steele dossier, we can definitely have an article about them then, okay? With the benefit of patience and hindsight. Am I allowed to say that, or 🪩? -- Y not? 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Merge In its current state, the article is does not contain enough info and isn't detailed enough to justify its existence. If there is more info "leaked" over the weekend, especially relating to topics that are not Hunter Biden, this could change. But for now, it should be merged into Hunter Biden laptop controversy. A lot of the keep votes accusing Wikipedia of censorship do not realize that the limited info in this article will remain in one form or another, just not in a standalone article. D4R1U5 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There are already aspects of the Twitter Files story that are not just about Hunter Biden. We've long gone past the point at which this is not just a very notable topic, but a standalone topic as well. Mathmo ^Talk 10:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  99% of it is about Hunter Biden. If they release something about COVID for example, then it would warrant its own article. D4R1U5 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• KEEP - the article has barely been up and already people (or bots) are calling for it to be deleted. I'm not really surprised this is happening - I'm sure people at Wikipedia are being "encouraged" to remove it. Wombat-911 (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Wombat-911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

• Delete or merge. Insufficient coverage to justify an article on it as a separate topic, especially under this name. Most of the sourcing doesn't treat the name as reliable or significant (using it only in quotes), and largely treats it as a subtopic of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy and the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. We don't need a separate article for every flash-in-the-pan expose, article, or meme that gets pushed as a part of that. Note that many of the arguments made above and below for keeping are either plainly false or are fundimentially speculative to the point of WP:TENDness. For instance, many arguments assume an importance that the sourcing definitely doesn't justify. It is also flatly untrue that most sources are using this name; higher-quality ones mention it at most once, in quotes, as a term used by Musk and Taibbi; since they don't use it themselves and treat it as a non-neutral title, the title here fails WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. Simply having sources covering an aspect of a topic is insufficient to justify creating an additional article on its own, especially when this risks becoming a WP:POVFORK of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy due to using a fundimentially POV title, framing, and focus. --Aquillion (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because many notable sources are speaking and writing about it, be it in criticism; and they're almost all using the same name. A topic is made notable by its coverage by notable sources, not its plebiscite by notable sources. Alfy32 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alfy32 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• Comment: A nomination made just thirty minutes after an article was created... an article as woefully incomplete as this one is... hard to pick a side here. One thing's for sure though: your comments in this discussion are going to be in the damn newspaper! Please discuss accordingly. jp×g 10:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: It is too notable to be deleted. If this event is not notable enough for Wikipedia, I believe there are at least a million article on Wikipedia that is less notable. To (kind of) prove this claim, just click "Random article" on Wikipedia; my claim is that for almost anyone, this article is more notable than 1 article for each 6 random articles; so, there are at least a million articles less notable than this because there are more than 6 million article on English Wikipedia. Mstf221 (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Mstf221, maybe if you assume good faith, then you can "understand how anyone without a political motivation tries this article to be deleted"? Other editors are discussing in good faith, you know. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge There seem to be plenty of third party, notable, sources. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to discourage journalism by wikipedia editors, and keep out celebrity gossip and routine fluff articles, not exclude political scandals and current events. Helixdq (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Well-sourced and notable. Can and should be separate from laptop article, just as Tower Commission is separate from Iran–Contra affair. Michaelmalak (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG at this point. If it truly were a "nothing burger" why are so many people arriving here and commenting on the talk page? There appears to be some political activism going on in the attempts to delete this page. The Twitter Files describe Big Tech collusion with political figures, and the censoring of a mainstream news source. The public will be watching to see if Wikipedia can provide neutrality here, or if it too is politically compromised. Beachy (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beachy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

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

  Please don't assume bad faith. I have not been "canvassed" by anyone. I've been an active user and contributor to Wikipedia since 2006 and I came to this article because I searched Wikipedia for information on a notable event. Beachy (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Delete & Merge for the aforementioned reasons, and merge into the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Also: This poll is being manipulated by Musk on Twitter. No sure how we can reach any honest consensus under such an invasion. IMHO Musk personally sending his fanboys after this process makes it pretty much irrelevant, but I have no idea how to resolve it in the other way. Maybe limit who can actually participate? SkywalkerPL (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a poll -- AfDs are closed according to consensus and consensus is assessed based on arguments that reference policies and guidelines. If a bunch of people show up to post nonsense, it will not have an effect on the outcome of the discussion, so I don't think any such action is needed. Also, I do not understand how you are advocating that it be deleted and merged at the same time (this is not possible). jp×g 11:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Now, I admire brevity as much as Hunter admires women, but I don't see how an article of this size can be merged without trimming important information. Delete !votes make no sense when the there is so much significant coverage in all mainstream reliable sources, much of it critical of the leaks itself btw, which is also notable. And, how come such a bad faith nomination was allowed to continue? Nominator says, "I don't know where to start explaining why this should be deleted. It's a disaster; feverish argument, but should be disregarded. Then says, Maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one, which overlooks WP:ATD. We then have veiled implications by some that the keep !voters are maybe influenced by alt right and far right. Also, looks like WP:BLUD against all voters is A-okay in this discussion. — hako9 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's a bunch of newspaper articles about a bunch of tweets about a bunch of e-mails about a bunch of tweets, and all of it happened about three days ago, so it's not certain that the thread of discussion will see continued coverage (or that such coverage will establish it as independently notable from the people reporting on it and/or the original controversy). jp×g 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't much, but this is receiving continuing significant coverage, [3], [4]. — hako9 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Also at this point of time, anything Elon does makes the news. So that in itself is not a good enough argument. D4R1U5 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep this is still developing, there is more than the laptop story, that will be released in the future. It's a clearly separated event from the laptop controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclauren (talk • contribs) 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Maclauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

• Keep Satisifies, WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG, everything. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - not a proper investigation except to satisfy the wishes of a company's new leadership, title should be changed if no consensus found AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There is already consensus to change the title (see Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022), so it will be renamed soon to just Twitter Files. However, that has nothing to do with notability criteria. MarioGom (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This deletion discussion shouldn't be happening now, it should be happening after at least a week. There is a bloody good reason why we have WP:RAPID, which applies regardless of whether someone failed to WP:DELAY. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  I decline to comment on the actual merits of the article itself. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: Because no solid policy-based argument for deletion has been presented in the discussion so far. The topic is obviously notable, finding verifiable sources is entirely possible. The quality of the current revision of an article has never been an argument for deleting an article altogether.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. This may become notable in the future, if actual information is revealed (rather than just insinuations designed to push a partisan agenda), or even if the partisan insinuations end up having a notable societal impact. But at the moment, there’s nothing notable here. Klausness (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 3

• There is already consensus to change the title (see Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022), so it will be renamed soon to just Twitter Files. However, that has nothing to do with notability criteria. MarioGom (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep As others have pointed out, the case for Delete has not been made, and several of the Delete votes suggest merging as an alternative. Note that a merge does not necessarily remove any present or future content, it's more a matter of editorial convenience. In this situation I would argue that Twitter and its editorial practices are much more important subjects than Hunter Biden or his electronic devices. Twitter is under new management which seems determined to release material that it feels casts bad light on the previous management. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that incidents other that the purloined laptop might well emerge. Our article already mentions claims of interference by the Trump Administration. If we merge and other incidents get attention, we may have to unmerge. If over time it turns out that nothing significant emerges beyond the laptop issue, we can always merge then. Keeping the articles separate for the time being is the sensible thing to do. —This editor has made over 30,000 edits outside this topic, and finds the added anonymous notes on other commenter's edits obnoxious.--agr (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep and rename Twitter Files, meets WP:GNG and any and all rules and regs for keeping a Wikipedia page (notable, sourced, etc.). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep but make it as succinct as possible until the release and (non-)debate around it has concluded, then sum up the event and re-evaluate if it should be merged or kept. It's certainly noteworthy, not necessarily for its content but definitely for its motives and impact. Also can we please filter out the brigading accounts here? --Kraligor (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Moreover, there's no consensus in the comments above as to why this should get deleted. --Modi mode (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. It is notable and has the proper evolving current-event template at top. Revisit later if needed. 5Q5|^✉ 14:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The article clearly has public interest. Deletion will, at the very least, appear to be political censorship and will make Wikipedia appear compromised. Kwroebuck (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Kwroebuck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep just wanted to say it does not really matter that there are more delete or keep votes, the result is not decided by majority of votes, just by enough votes "keep". Valery Zapolodov (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  You just contradicted yourself. You said the number of votes doesn't matter, and then you said "just by enough votes 'keep'" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  There also are vastly more keep votes then delete votes, from what I can see, for what little that's worth. casualdejekyll 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I've given up trying to figure out what votes have solid reasoning behind them and which ones don't. This AFD is a mess. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Honestly, the situation has clearly changed enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the closing panel has to throw out most of the early votes. If the CRYSTALBALLing of some of the people comes true, I wouldn't be surprised if there are vastly more sources by the end of the week. At the moment, I still maintain the position that this is not a meaningfully separate thing from Hunter Biden laptop controversy, but who knows how I'll feel in three days. (This type of AfD disaster is exactly why we have WP:TOOSOON.) casualdejekyll 14:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Keep notable and sources are reliable. the actual investigation of the twitter file is also a different topic than the twitter files. The files are the information about the political bias and censorship and how it did or didn't influence the election. The investigation is about Elon Musk and his release of the information to the public, the process by which he chose to do so, and the subsequent additional investigations it creates, the research, the firings within Twitter, etc. The two are separate and distinct yet heavily related articles. Sewnew (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)— Sewnew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Why do some people feel entitled to control what can be said? You are free to counter any points that you don't agree with. To suppress it is tantamount to dictatorship and away from a civil society 2600:8800:1380:21D:8518:CD5E:A511:11AA (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.