Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Biden iCloud leak


 * 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 delete. TigerShark (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden iCloud leak

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article, created hours ago, contains lots of allegedly and supposedly and anonymous and claimed stuff about everyone's favorite conspiracy theory target and I suggest it be promptly removed. At most it might warrant a mention in the man's BLP, if even that. soibangla (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — The events surrounding this topic are still developing and, assuming it is legitimate, deserves an article. Hunter Biden laptop controversy still remains despite its controversial nature. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * assuming it is legitimate is not solid grounds for creating an entire article. soibangla (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not assume that anything from 4chan is "legitimate" without outside corroboration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep You didn't present valid grounds for deletion. If you believe the article is not presenting facts properly or otherwise, fix it yourself, or tag the article accordingly / write on the talk page. The article is comprised of citations to reliable sources. Yes, it's alleged, but reliable sources have reported on it. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 21:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply because reliable sources report something doesn't make it worthy of its own article. It doesn't even necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in an existing article. Everything about this remains nothing but allegations from anonymous people at this point. No one knows if the dump is real or has reported on any of its contents. It's hard to remember a flimsier excuse for a new article. Just absolutely absurd. soibangla (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Just because something is in the news does not mean it becomes a Wikipedia article. Details are scant. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment: While the topic of the article is not a true "breaking news topic" (4 days old), the article was created about an hour prior to AfD nomination, so WP:RAPID does apply to a degree. I would recommend no one else give an !vote for 24 hours to let the article have a chance to expand, then do an assessment at that point in time.  In 24 hours, I will ping everyone who has voted (no matter what was !voted) in this AfD prior to this message to allow for a 2nd look.  !votes may or may not change, but since the article hasn't had a chance to show notability within an hour, it might after a 24 hour time to do improvements or have talk page discussions. (Member of WP:Current events) Elijahandskip (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP concerns outweigh RAPID. I won't be changing my mind in 24 hours time, barring some serious developments. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As stated/promised, I am pinging the editors who gave their opinion/!vote before the WP:RAPID comment. You can (and are recommended) to reassess the article. Your !votes may or may not change, but I would be satisfied that WP:RAPID would have been followed for any further comments/!votes.,, , & . Elijahandskip (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And as I expected, nothing has happened in the last 24 hours to change the need to delete this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per Muboshgu's exact points. Argles Barkley (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article itself makes clear it's not even clear if the even happened. WP:BLP requires verifiability. In the context of this alleging criminality (drug use), we need to have a high standard on the encyclopaedia for this. CT55555 (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Hunter Biden: I don't think that at the moment this is in and of itself notable enough to warrant its own article and should stay under the subheading, alongside the aforementioned point regarding WP:NOTNEWS. When and if more things come to light, I wouldn't oppose the article being recreated then, but in its current state, I think a dedicated article is unnecessary. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 00:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Hunter Biden is a public figure and the coverage of his tribulations has been lasting. The hack of the account is notable and the material may also be of some notability. I think this is more than gossip and I imagine opinions vary based on political leanings. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to clarify two things, first is that it is an alleged hack. No reliable sources have said that the event described in this article even happened; this is an article about an event whose very veracity is in question. Second, when you say that this is not gossip, I have to point to the dictionary definition of gossip: "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." This article is by definition gossip. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Right now, this is WP:TOOSOON. There isn't enough to say about the leak that can't be briefly summarised in Hunter Biden's article. The problem though is that in two weeks, once more information is verified/there is more fallout to speak of/etc., it seems reasonably likely that there probably will be enough to talk about for a standalone article on this topic to make sense, but I guess we'll deal with that when the time comes. Endwise (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Will "enough to talk about" include stuff like a picture of a shirtless man lying on a couch while surrounded by five underage girls and two dogs did not show Hunter Biden, nor did it come from the alleged July 2022 hacking of his iCloud account? soibangla (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's not from the iCloud leak, I don't understand the point of bringing it up. Endwise (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's represented as such. If history is any guide, there will be lots of similar representations and we'll see lots of "why aren't you guys talking about that picture?!" on the Talk page for years. soibangla (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand how that has any relevance to this deletion discussion. Endwise (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless this story is about anything other than fake/real salacious images, this article makes Wikipedia look like TMZ. We should err on the conservative until the story proves to be anything other than that, at least until after the initial frenzy of speculation and lies fades. It should be deleted immediately. It can always be restored if anything comes of it. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to WP:TOOSOON and, more importantly, failing WP:BLP (by being a contentious biographical article that isn't supported by reliable sources). 4chan is far from a reliable source, and all other sources are just discussion about 4chan's allegations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly sourced BLP-sensitive content. If it's notable, there will soon be mainstream RS instead of marginal sources and gossip dumps. SPECIFICO talk 11:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: We have major outlets covering the story - Newsweek, National Review also Fox News, NBC. Lightburst (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply/comment The first story is about how Google is not showing images due to a lack of reliable sources. The second one is about how the secret service has heard an unconfirmed rumour. Fox News is not a reliable source. #4 is the same as #2. If there was a newspaper article saying that the CIA is aware of a rumour of an alien abduction, it doesn't mean aliens abducted someone. We still seem very far away from any confirmation that the subject of the article is anything more than a hoax. Of course it might be true. And therefore we can just wait until that is confirmed. Until then, we need to be careful to avoid using wikipedia to perpetuate a rumour and we need to be mindful of the WP:BLP rules, which are generally considered to be at the high end of the importance spectrum, I think. CT55555 (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, all that. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 has become a gossip rag. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Although, heartfelt. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply — The latter is the only RS here, which is why I've chosen to ignore the other sources in this article. This topic has a very right-wing bias and anything less than generally reliable is a risky source. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Snopes, The Verge and Vice, which are all RS, have covered the leak. Your decision to remove the content from Hunter Biden's article is ridiculous. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please put all personal attacks on my user talk page. This is the AfD. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From your Snopes link: "At this stage, we advise readers to take individual rumors and memes that appear to be blooming out of this alleged hack with a grain of salt. This is not to say that this material should automatically be presumed to be false (or true). Rather, it’s simply the case that the 4chan message board has a long history of delivering up questionable content"
 * From your Verge link: "Exact details are hard to confirm"
 * From your Vice link: "Motherboard has been unable to independently verify..."
 * It seems that even he sources you are suggestion are exhibiting caution. CT55555 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete An alleged hack of an alleged online storage account allegedly owned by Hunter Biden? Delete per guidelines on the Wikipedia not being a haven of gossipy tabloid material. The creation of such drivel shows remarkably poor judgement on the article creator's part. 4chan is a haven for malcontents and degenerates, not everything they claim is true, and not everything they do that's true is noteworthy. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. X-Editor (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment, I posted a neutral notification to WT:BLPN talk page inviting others to comment. CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty close to G10 but regardless he is not a public figure and WP:NOTGOSSIP applies as well as general WP:BLP policy and failing WP:V. Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hunter Biden's laptop. Scope up modestly if needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Abso-frikkin-lutely not, we are not making a catch-all Hunter Biden controversies, leaks, and conspiracies type of article. Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We are if it is supported by sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleted, primarily on the grounds of WP:NOTGOSSIP. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as this will not develop into anything bigger than a breaking news report. — VersaceSpace  🌃 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with the option of creating again. Alternatively this could be merged into some new article that covers this as well as the laptop story.  I think the AfD jumped the gun a bit and outside parties might view this as trying to suppress negative information.  This concern can be addressed by keeping the content as a subsection of a proper parent article since length isn't an issue. Springee (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any material updates to this story since the article was created, but now we're seeing the inevitable consequence of creating the article. Seeing as there appears to be a consensus for it, I suggest the article be swiftly nuked. soibangla (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it won’t be “swiftly nuked” because of the WP:RAPID you did by starting an AfD before a PROD/Speedy deletion, so at least until the 7 days are up and the AfD concludes, the article will for sure be in mainspace since there is too much controversy for any WP:SNOW closures. After that, it is up to what the AfD concludes. Technically, you caused the article to be up longer that it should be in my opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply — Yes, every article is going to get someone who posts that kind of information, intentionally or not. Nothing extended protection can't fix. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Every article will attract people calling the subject a pedophile? soibangla (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Almost certainly a hoax. I don't think anything should be merged to the main article at all, as this would violate WP:BLP. Just gossip. Curbon7 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "some of the images shared on 4Chan haven’t previously appeared anywhere else online". Almost certainly a hoax is almost certainly false. Endwise (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Images being new ≠ images being what a 4Chan user says they are
 * A lack of verifiability + a person often the target of conspiracy theories = a reasonable situation to say something is likely a hoax. But a great way to destroy that concern is to share confirmation from a reliable source. I assume many of us are noting the lack of that so far. CT55555 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "being what a 4Chan user says they are". It was just a dump of files. They weren't individually labelled by the person who posted them on 4chan or something. Endwise (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Authenticated images? On a site infested with hoaxers? I can't believe we're even discussing this anymore. soibangla (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, deepfake technology has definitely progressed to some extent in recent years, but I don't think I've seen anyone seriously assert that those videos of him are deepfaked or whatever, if that's what you're suggesting. Endwise (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you personally examined the purported videos, as opposed to images? Are you aware of a reliable source vouching for any purported videos? Can this discussion descend any deeper into absurdity? Please don't make me walk away from this thinking lesser of you. soibangla (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph of that same article it discusses the videos, as well Some videos appear to show Hunter Biden smoking crack cocaine or in sexual encounters with women believed to be escorts. Here's another random article that discusses them (alleged photos and videos hacked from his phone that show drug use and sexual encounters). To be clear, I too think this article should be deleted. But, again, either this is a massive, highly sophisticated, state-of-the-art deepfake operation undertaken by a 4chan user, or it's not a hoax in its entirety. "Almost certainly a hoax" is, as I said, almost certainly false, so you shouldn't cite it as your reason to delete an article, particularly when there are other good reasons on hand. Endwise (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As of right now, this is completely unverifiable, as the only stem source is a 4chan post. There is nothing here; as these are extraordinary BLP-claims tied to a single post that has a high chance of being a fabrication/exaggeration/whatever-other-word-you-want-to-use, we should not be posting it in Wikivoice as if it were fact. Curbon7 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply — I agree with Endwise's assessment here, and it is most certainly real, but what matters more is reliable sources saying that, not us. Once more information comes out about it, this article will have much better ground. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are reporting "it is most certainly real?" Um...a great big nope on that. soibangla (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any updates on this, by sources reliable or otherwise. Just sayin. soibangla (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, I was persuaded by the possible BLP concerns Curbon7 and others have outlined above and the I also considered the gossip arguments. If hard news emerges the article can be recreated or a section in another article. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like straight WP:NOTNEWS. ValarianB (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly surprised by the fact that not a single source has given any updates on the leak. You'd think that at least one source would further investigate this and find something. But instead, we get radio silence. X-Editor (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course it's being considered to be deleted. Gotta suppress the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:A000:A60A:6524:7877:D3A3:733E (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that it is authentic? X-Editor (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete The most surprising element of this story is that 4chan, yes 4chan, removed this post. It didn't meet 4chan's standards which, frankly, I didn't know they even had. How can Wikipedia include this information which is unverified? The only story here is how the media is covering this story which seems to have blown up and then died. A media blip like so many in our current political atmosphere. If this has lasting coverage or if this leads to charges or futher events, maybe then an article can be considered. As far as I can see, there is no "there" there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's the US President's son & that makes its quite notable. I'd choose keep, if it were any of Trump's children. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you consider framing your keep recommendation in terms of our notability policies rather than the subject's lineage? We already a) know who he is, and b) have an article about his biography. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This Afd's result, will be decided by the closer. I'll accept whatever the closer's decision is. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.