Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Biden laptop controversy


 * 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 redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is redundant to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory among others. soibangla (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an independently WP:NOTABLE controversy that is out of the scope for Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, as it is currently named. This controversy is reported by RS to involve 1) the Democratic party which - on behalf of Joe Biden - denied an allegation that is possibly supported by laptop data, 2) a group of 50 former intelligence professionals who made the widely publicised but unsubstantiated claim - during the 2020 election - that this laptop is part a Russian information operation and 3) elements of the mainstream media are allegedly suppressing this story due to lack of access to primary data - just like they did with another topic we all know about - and 4) Federal officials delaying "actions" so as not to adversely effect the outcome of the 2020 elections in favor of alleged Russian's goals. I created this article in good faith because I read the sources referenced here and also read the comments of multiple editors on the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page who do not believe its claims are verifiable or neutral. I would agree to a merge this page with that page if it is renamed as Biden–Ukraine controversy, or something similarly neutral, and reworked to reflect more up-to-date sources. CutePeach (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What did the Democratic party deny that is possibly supported by the laptop data? 50 former intelligence professionals who made the widely publicised but unsubstantiated claim...that this laptop is part a Russian information operation significantly misrepresents what they actually said. Here you say I am new to this subject yet this obvious POVFORK article was created. Consequently I now recommend WP:SPEEDY soibangla (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The group of former intelligence professionals said it had "hallmarks" of a Russian information operation, which is reflected accurately in the article. What the WSK oped says is that they had no way of knowing this and were likely just trying to prevent another Comey type fiasco, and I laud them for that, but elections are over now. Time for WP:COMMONSENSE. We have no idea if/how the Russians are involved and what data from the laptop feeds into whacky conspiracy theories, and what makes up a legitimate political controversy. Good night now. CutePeach (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * former intelligence professionals said it had "hallmarks" of a Russian information operation is not what you just said here: this laptop is part a Russian information operation soibangla (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Russians releasing this video from this laptop in which he says he lost another laptop with even worse videos - to Russians who wonna blackmail him - is just too many wheels inside wheels, which not only makes no sense, but also isn't supported by RS. The FBI - which now has possession of the laptop - hasn't issued any statement in this regard, so we have no idea if/how the Russians were/are involved. Until then, this is just a controversy and there is no conspiracy, man. CutePeach (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your new article is predicated on a report by an unreliable source and echoed by a handful of dubious/unreliable sources. This is not sufficient basis for a new article. soibangla (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge - The content in this article is DUE in the same exact proportion as content on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. It just uses more controversial sourcing (Newsweek, NY Post, etc), and has a title that appears to make this conspiracy theory more plausible than is warranted. I would even go so far as to say this article is a POVFORK of Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. I don't believe it has notability independent of that theory, and it is never mentioned outside of that theory in our RSes. Ergo, should be redirected to that article, and any non-redundant DUE NPOV content that is of high quality should be merged into a new section of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC) (vote updated to rd/m 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC))
 * Delete Redundant with Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and possessing a stilted title that makes for an unlikely search term. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to other articles and a POVFORK. The opening is NPOV, but the section about the right wing whining that the story is being covered up is quite POV. Rather than focus on the 50 former intelligence officials who tagged this as a "Russian information operation", the focus goes to Holman W. Jenkins Jr. criticizing them, even while he celebrates a deprecated source in WP:DAILYMAIL and one that probably should be deprecated in WP:NYPOST. Nothing is presented about the refutation of allegations, such as Biden campaign denials that are readily available. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am new to American Politics on Wikipedia. Are you saying that if a Filipino party denied an allegation made against its leader, then we on Wikipedia could put it as fact in article titles and content, before the Filipino government has conducted an investigation on the matter? What about Zimbabwean or Syrian political parties? I can understand how adding the Biden campaign denials to this article would improve it, and I would encourage you to do so, but I don't get how deleting the article - cutting off our nose to spite our face - somehow makes it better. I certainly don't get how such an argument is based on policy. Please see WP:POVDELETION. CutePeach (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - POVFORK of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. I don't think there's much here worth merging, it's already covered using more reliable sources at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. This previously contained BLP violating content, which I removed per WP:GRAPEVINE; the remaining article body is centred on an opinion piece discussing these allegations, which come from two disreputable low-quality tabloids, as Muboshgu points out above. The coverage in some of these tabloid attack pieces is getting pretty nasty, they should be treated with extreme caution per BLP. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Per WP:POVFORK. The contents of Hunter Biden laptop controversy duplicates the contents of Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, but with a more right-leaning POV and WP:UNDUE problems, giving too much weight to an opinion columnist. I disagree with deletion, I think this should be a redirect, I find the search term plausible. I disagree with merging, the material is already covered at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, and is covered with the correct NPOV/WEIGHT. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POVFORK. The article overlaps with material already presented elsewhere. See discussion at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy. TFD (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect (merge if applicable, I guess) - this isn't a separate topic from Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and it has little potential for enough growth to require forking the article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. There's already appropriate discussion of the laptop there. History of this page will remain accessible if anyone sees anything worth merging. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the article has been changed so drastically from the Stub I started it as that it does indeed read exactly like a fork of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, which is misleading for new editors joining the discussion. Gone is the statement sourced from Business Insider saying the laptop data was claimed to incriminate Hunter and harm his father's candidacy. Gone is the CNN report quoting Hunter saying the laptop could have belonged to him, which potentially proves the provenance of the data. Gone is the report of Hunter naked in bed talking about another lost laptop that the entire world saw but which Wikipedia some Wikipedia editors consider too controversial conspiracy for the chaste eyes of our innocent readers. I personally don't actually believe the data on this laptop incriminates or hurts the Bidens all that much, but I don't believe it is a conspiracy theory to say the laptop is his and was possibly handed to Trump allies by a regular dude (and not some Russians, which is in reference to a different earlier lost laptop) - yet some editors here are reacting in a knee jerk fashion as if I and the sources I provide claim otherwise. This is yet another example of how the entire world gets to gets to see the emperor naked (quite literally in this case), while POVPUSHING Wikipedians spin yarn. CutePeach (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am new to this subject. Others are not. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have already been topic-banned in one area, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291. Diving into another contentious topic area and then being extremely combative and belligerent towards others who hold a different point of view does not bode well. Zaathras (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

On the narrow question of whether Joe Biden used his position as vice president to push for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter Biden lots of money — there’s no credible evidence of that, several media investigations have concluded. But, as the Times ever so delicately put it, “some State Department officials had expressed concern that Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine could complicate his father’s diplomacy there.”
 * Merge two articles keeping this name. More NPOV name. There is a conspiracy theory (Biden engaged in corrupt activities) and there is other stuff that may be true, so this name is much more suitable. A lot of people use Motte-and-bailey tactics here: if the former is a conspiracy theory than everything tangentially related to it is also fake news. Alaexis¿question? 19:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * One topic is a notable political smear relating to a US election and involving 2 US Presidents, the other is about the (currently unproven) dodgy dealings of a private businessman which have had only brief, passing coverage in quality sources. If that private citizen was anyone other than Biden's son it wouldn't be considered remotely suitable for a separate article because of BLP policy, not least the section on attack pages. There's WP:BLPCRIME to consider as well. The vast majority of coverage on this comes from tabloid smears and disclosures of alleged hacked material – including sensitive personal details – which are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Hunter's biography can include the information that's reported by RS, but I don't believe there's enough of it to warrant a separate article with this title, and a neutral article can't be produced from the little material there is (again, because of BLP/attack pages). This title is not a substitute for the article on Joe Biden and Ukraine, as it's only related to one aspect of that affair, despite the fact it was essentially forked from it. Concerns about the conspiracy theory article's name are a separate issue, and are a topic for its talk page. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. It was an important story in and of itself. It has been covered by reliable sources and it is also a media story - what gets and what doesn't get covered. As The Boston Globe puts it :
 * So pretending that the conspiracy theory is the only thing that is notable here is not right. Alaexis¿question? 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was before the laptop story so it's probably better to merge everything into one article with a more neutral title. Alaexis¿question? 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden's conflict of interest in Ukraine is covered in the article on the conspiracy theory, and is only tangentially related Hunter's Biden's alleged laptop – the sources I read said the conflict of interest was caused by Hunter simply having the Burisma job in the first place. If elements of the "laptop story" are mentioned in reliable sources, then my view is that coverage belongs in Hunter Biden's article. My assessment is that it hasn't had enough coverage to warrant a separate topic – and that there's not enough material to write a neutral article (as I mentioned above). Jr8825  •  Talk  22:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, it is a stretch to say there is enough material to justify an article. A section on the main article is enough. Zaathras (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVFORK issues with weak sourcing. KidAd  •  SPEAK  22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory per WP:POVFORK. Creator is new to American Politics on Wikipedia ... and should learn from this.  starship .paint  (exalt) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. That article already MORE than adequately covers the topic, and we don't need a redundant article.  It's a lesser part of the greater topic, and doesn't need its own article.  -- Jayron 32 17:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. It is currently a big BLP violation, so I have blanked it for now. This AfD can then determine its fate. -- Valjean (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the existing article. There are not enough strong sources to support a standalone article. I believe this should be a notable enough topic for RS to cover, but for some reason they don't want to. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, per WP:POVFORK. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  06:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does it seem to others that there is a prompt and solid consensus for a redirect and deletion? soibangla (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing AFDs early is sometimes controversial. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could potentially be closed early per the snowball clause. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  03:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory Nitesh003 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2021 (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.