Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation

Twitter Files Investigation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

why do you mean I don't know where to even start???? If you can't properly frame your opinion then why even say this kind of non sense????? 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not reporting on real news stories is the disaster. Please try to at least adhere to the 1st amendment in principle. 2600:1700:34:3810:30B5:8220:A165:A00B (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or you're just suggesting that based on your emotional feelings we will go ahead and remove things.

fully biased view. degenerous. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can give you a very good reason this shouldn't be deleted.. Freedom of Speech! It's a basic human right, and ANY censorship of that is unconstitutional 74.84.229.69 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hon, Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with a website sharing an article or not. You maybe need to reread the first amendment. 2600:6C4A:107F:D6EE:1C67:5B77:C017:3D40 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to say, but you have no idea, at all, what this website -- wikipedia-- stands for. In fact the idea of knowledge and path to it is the foundation of this website.

That's why this needs to stay, until things clear out. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start…

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

The report concerns the idea that is deeply rooted in all the modern foundation of our society.

In fact Wikipedia is built based on this foundation, i.e. the freedom, universality, accessibility, of knowledge and ideas.

I suggest all of you, please, take a some time to think about this. Take it out of the your political lens, think of it on isolation as a fundamental idea that toke our society to this day.

Give it some time, and don't delete it. We clear our heads and talk again after 30 days. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. [reply]
Delete per Zaathras Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why????? elaborate, please. So we can also learn. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why? 2001:19E8:F7:740A:FD50:33E9:D231:31A7 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an evolving story and a page will permit expanded documentation.Kmccook (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But we do know that this Twitter thread was a bust. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this day & age of American politics? It's rare that anything is ever certain. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete This is a three-sentence description of a self-published internet page. Not Notable. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete -- under the scope of the laptop article. Feoffer (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why??? 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
elaborate??? 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge – I agree with Wikisempra that many are being dishonest in understating the manifest notability of this topic. The New York Times have published a good summary of what enfolded here. But I also agree that this is a derivative topic with a questionable enduring/standalone notability. It seems clear that this is better developed as a subtopic on the main articles. And I am not convinced this stub article will get a full, focused treatment of the overall supposed revelations and the public response. I personally am uninterested in that task. It will likely linger as it presently stands, detailing virtually nothing of Taibbi's Twitter thread for readers. Οἶδα (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of bad faith actors in Wikipedia at the moment who want to take down this article because it embarrasses the Democratic National Committee and the Biden team. Not only do these bad faith actors delete any post that has a reference from the NY Post, The Post Millennial, One America News Network, Fox News, Breitbart or any news outlet that is center right because of the stupid reliability argument made by Wiki editors with ties to left leaning organizations like Media Matters, Snopes, Politifact, AP, Reuters with left leaning funding. Anyway just to let all these legacy media sycophants know, there are going to more releases coming up in the coming weeks.F2Milk (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above is not an actual vote to keep the article, but rather a tired tirade against sources that this project deems reliable and the championing of those they prefer, but have been rejected here countless times. (WP:RSP). Zaathras (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with the personal attacks. You can make an argument without the involvement of ad hominems: "Note that the above is not an actual vote to keep the article, but rather... and the championing of those they prefer". Cable10291 (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no insults in the comment you're responding to. There are, however, quite a few in that "vote" above it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Keep: The fact that some users who voted “Delete” mentioned that a valid reason was that ’The New York Times did not publish “very detailed” articles regarding the Twitter Files is truly amazing. I do not mean to offend anyone, but so many users are exuding lack of intelligence, it is unreal to see some saying “let’s see how it plays out”. What do you mean? This is a serious issue. Is ‘The New York Times the reference of journalism? All are valid. The purpose of the files was to expose how corrupt the journalistic world is becoming, that includes US, Wikipedia. If you are concerned about the “optics” think that there are more emails coming. For anyone on the outside deleting this very important article just shows that the right-wing, which I am no fan of, is right in regards to suppressing content. Rivelinp (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Rivelinp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Facts don't care about feelings. Supressing the factual data concerning twitters supression should be a no-brainer. The amount of respect lost and therefore the amount of donations given have affected wikipedia negatively. You will never successfully block the truth, only amplify that you want to supress it. Woke culture is a destructive virus. Truth is the cure. I am sure you will delete this, I am also sure it will only be another nail in wikipedias proverbial coffin. Criminals control speech, those with nothing to hide or control would not be intimidated by free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.52 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Twitter files are ongoing with relevant factual information. Gensao (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the topic is worthy of keeping, although it would need a serious expansion in the coming weeks. If it *has* to be deleted, I would begrudgingly support a merge into a preexisting article dealing with Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter. EytanMelech (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMO this is worth keeping as it has been indicated that there will be more releases. If at that stage it is still not worth not keeping, it may be merged into either Elon Musk's take over of Twitter or the Hunter Biden's laptop story. Chirag (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly a noteworthy and real event to pretend otherwise is dishonest. Varying partisan opinions can be made about the event, but users deserve the newsorthy information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:4001:2180:f82d:99b0:5a5c:848d (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Otherwise, this platform is becoming another platform for the left. 75.148.176.238 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge. The material here can be covered adequately in the Hunter Biden laptop article and/or the article on Matt Taibbi. There's no reason for a tweet thread to have its own stand-alone article. Binarybits (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is still developing, there is apparently more (potentially not related to the laptop story) that will be released in the future. It's a separate event from the laptop controversy, happening years later. Whatever your opinion on the matter, it is still a notable event (hundreds of thousands of likes, not to mention discussion/views) in the story of the Twitter takeover and subsequent reaction to the previous administration. Anyone can add cited information about how other groups of people didn't think it was notable.

Delete I think it's pretty clear that a single tweet thread doesn't deserve an entire article. The story in question isn't even in the public interest: a private individual asked that revenge porn, which is illegal, be stopped from being shared on a website where it was being shared. This is just not interesting.

Slugiscool99 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy and now independent of Taibbi and has outgrown the original "Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy" and has grown to the Trump and Biden administration colluding with a private entity to restrict civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheeeeeeep (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Keep 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)[reply]

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

Keep minus the left-wing biased media, this is relevant and important information the public should learn about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1480:60A0:D15A:B146:1A63:C81E (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be deleted. Scott.M.Allison (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Scott.M.Allison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Noteworthy article, can surely be expanded.--Sakiv (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a story that is well sourced and important. It deals with fundamental first amendment rights. Government actors worked with a private company to censor speech, which is illegal if done directly. And doing this just before an election, to the benefit of one candidate over the other, elevates the importance of this story. Mainstream media, of course, is trying to ignore this story as it reflects poorly on them. The NYT, WAPO, etc. took TWO years to bother to determine that the laptop was legitimate. They took the statements of 40 ex-intel officers that it "had the hallmarks of a Russian information operation" and discredited the story. 47.188.38.194 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly relevant. Please expand. Ninety Mile Beach (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep To keep Wikipedia a free speech platform. 20:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB15:473:8400:6DB6:1F7E:10B6:8A93 (talk)
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)[reply]
Keep. I am not going to argue under the policies for deletion or retention. I am arguing under the need for the revision of these policies. This is a point in history where left bias media, politicians and celebrities have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar of censorship and a spotlight has been shone on it.
The almost immediate attempt of members of Wikipedia to try and censor any news about it using "policies" designed to keep junk off the platform is just another visible trace of this censorship. Just because the MSM want this to go away and are trying to ignore it does not mean that Wikidpedia can just wish it away. This is an evolving story which is not over and already the attempts to censor it on the platform have begun.
This censorship attempt is being logged, recorded, and stored in places from which it will never fade. It will always be visible that Wikipedia attempted to censor a story they didn't like and, in the attempt, firmly put itself in the same camp as those exposed.
Think long and hard before attempting this censorship. Because you are on a public stage and all eyes are on you. I recall the very first days of Wikipedia. I am saddened by how far it has fallen. 145.224.66.160 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge. As others have said this isn't particularly noteworthy no matter how much some people insist it is. It's a footnote at most, stretched into an entire article. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Internet. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closing admin. Single-purpose accounts tagged, plus 2 sleepers with long inactivity til this Afd. The IPs are to numerous to tag as well, but their entries are in the same boat of meritless keep votes. ValarianB (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could they at least be struck? Would make it easier for curious editors like me to see what the current general consensus is. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. Usually I've just seen SPAs denoted with the tag so the closing admin knows. I've also tagged another dormant one. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Alright then. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not ascertained by a beancount, but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Through that lens, I don't see the various lower-quality arguments offered by newer users and IPs as being a hindrance in determining consensus here, and (while there are very few that are good arguments) I would object to summarily removing their comments simply on the basis that they are new users or anonymous users; doing so is inconsistent with WP:TPO and is not warranted from an WP:IAR perspective at this juncture. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Popular culture. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]