Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for Inquiry Investigations Group


 * 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. Sources analyzed in the discussion don't appear to satisfy the WP:NORG standard and there were not alternative sources put forward. Since this article and its redirects have been around a long time, as an editorial action I'm going to recreate them as redirects to Center for Inquiry. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Center for Inquiry Investigations Group

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

This article fails WP:NORG and is full of promotional content. While the amount of sources are impressive, they are all complete garbage and spam. I have prepared a SIRS table (which is too large to fit into Twinkle) that individually examines every single source included in the article as of this diff and demonstrates how they all fail WP:SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: it turns out that I nominated this for deletion nearly 5 years ago when it was listed under a different name, looking at it again my attitude has not changed, i.e. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Press coverage seems incidental, self-published or minor. May be worth mentioning within the Center for Inquiry article, but I don't think it merits something in its own right. Shritwod (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is the table that examines every single source. As you can see, despite their volume, they are all unreliable or provide no significant coverage. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey
You could try to make a case that it's not reliable at RSN, but you'd probably lose that battle. I think it's easy to see "medium" in the URL and immediately dismiss something as a blog post. That's not the case here. Medium employs paid journalists and editors for a smattering of professional publications that it hosts on its website. That's one of them. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting in the work to produce that table. A news google search only lists 9 results, from either what appears to be unreliable sources or failing WP:ORGDEPTH. Google search results show wiki pages overwhelmingly for the first 2 or so pages, and then no reliable sources for the next few (I can't be bothered to look for more pages, a 6 page google search is all I did). I'll wait for a few days to give time for others to find sources just in case, but so far I don't see evidence of notability myself. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have anywhere near the time necessary to verify the accuracy of all this data, but as odds would have it, I checked two randomly and found one error. "Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II" does in fact include a discussion of IIG activities. (Search IIG.) Rp2006 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It contains a single question in an interview, which makes it a primary source, and it's still not independent, so does not contribute to notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I was getting tired by that point. Sorry I missed the question "I understand you were part of the IIG test, testing a Flat-Earth in cooperation with Flat-Earthers?" in a magazine published by the CFI. Anyways, you don't really have to "verify the accuracy of all this data". You just have to give us two or more sources that satisfy WP:SIRS. The person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me since I have to do that in order to make an AfD. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, good work on the WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I don't accept the soundness of your statement that "the [only] person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me." This is especially true now that I pointed out an error, which you have not (yet) corrected. 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As the source is not independent, the error does not affect the subsequent assessment of GNG.A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 05:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't go back to modify it since it's effectively part of a timestamped comment, and going back to change it now would alter the meaning which would result in any reader not fully understanding what prompted this thread. Usually I only do this if it's really egregious or nobody has responded. But I'll go modify it now since you requested. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the source analysis, because I don't see two WP:GNG/WP:NORG sources. Levivich 03:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There is another error in the source analysis. OneZero is not a blog. It is a journalistic publication Medium. From their website: "OneZero is a publication from Medium about the impact of technology on people and the future. Our editorial team is also behind Debugger, a publication about gadgets, and Future Human, a science publication about the survival of our species. As a journalistic publication owned by Medium, OneZero maintains editorial independence over the stories it publishes on the Medium platform. Medium’s business interests and investors have no bearing on our work. We avoid conflicts of interest and, where unavoidable, disclose them. OneZero employees do not have any financial stake in the companies they cover and may not act on nonpublic information for personal gain or the gain of friends and family. Though we make every effort to be accurate in our reporting, when we are wrong, we acknowledge and correct our mistakes. We do not accept gifts, and we pay for or return products that we review. All articles published on OneZero, including those by staff, expert contributors, and freelance reporters, are subject to editing and fact-checking for accuracy by OneZero’s editorial staff."
 * The first relevant thread at the linked RSP entry deals with this issue more or less: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192 Not much consensus ensued though. I read the mission statement and didn't really see the proof of reliability above a blog. I can't submit a correction, for instance, and I'm unsure how their editorial process works. Seems like they just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" that can arbitrarily approve/change/deny stories. None of them actually list on their profile that they're an editor for OneZero, most list that they work for Medium and one lists "former lead editor, Forge at Medium" which is confusing since from her profile she hasn't updated in months but still has editorial access? Why haven't they removed her by now if she doesn't work for Medium? It's also kind of unclear how this "editorial independence" exists when most of the editors list their affiliation as being with the parent company; which implies they're not very independent. From my experience serious journalists are very particular about listing their specific affiliation. For instance, journalists will always say they work at "Bloomberg News" and not "Bloomberg". Or the The Athletic versus the NYTimes company. Those who work in the former are very particular that they don't work for the latter, even though the latter is the parent entity. Though this is just anecdotal and isn't much to base an actual assessment on but it's part of why I judged it initially as a blog that Medium threw some money and employees at, rather than a serious journalistic endeavour. Perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment, but that was my somewhat informed belief when I made the SIRS table (probably should've gone into more detail) and it wasn't an inadvertent error on my part. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not much consensus is a weird takeaway from that thread. never responded to clarifications regarding the nature of re:form, and he is the only person in that thread complaining. Jytdog is an editor whom I have (had?) great respect for, but he could be a bit dismissive and stubborn when it came to challenges to his decisions. It's not clear to me from that thread that we should be dismissive here of a journalistic publication based solely on the other avenues of business for the parent company of that publication. I also think that your above suspicion that Medium just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" is extremely weird. I'm going to assume in good faith that that was just a gut reaction and not actually what you believe. Medium is not unreliable because the company is somehow biased or shady. Medium is unreliable because anyone can create self-published content on their platform. That is not the case for their owned publications, like OneZero, which are legitimate journalistic organizations. Journalists are  reliable because they are paid by their company, not less. As  said in the thread you linked: "Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up 'publications' which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if: a) The editors and writers have prior journalism experience, or other relevant expertise; b) The writers are paid; c) The editors are medium.com staff or endorsed by them" These all seem to be true for OneZero as well, and I agree with that assessment.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't really see it to be a legit journalistic organization at the time based on the fact almost all the editors list their affiliation as "Medium" and not the actual journalistic organization (i.e. saying they work for "OneZero"). Same with the lack of way to submit corrections. Haven't seen other news organizations do that in the past as they have a very clear separation between news and the rest of the business as well as an email address to send angry letters to. Plus people will acknowledge that they work for the publication and not the parent entity. Didn't really feel like there was a bunch of effort put into "OneZero" and while the mission statement is nice I didn't really see it being a real journalistic organization; more like a blog run by the Medium company. While it's a very nice blog and Medium maybe isn't a biased/shady company I still think it's a blog; because why else wouldn't any of the editors proclaim that they work at "OneZero" in their Medium bios? It would make sense for them to do that if their full time gig was being an editor rather than just having to manage a blog as an extra job duty. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if you're implying that Medium threw the janitor and the IT guy at a publication and called them "editors". Medium is a website that owns several publications. Medium is also a self-publishing platform. "Publications" is also a feature of Medium which allows editorial control for content. OneZero is a publication in which the editorial board consists of Medium employees employed as the Medium Editorial Group whose job it is to curate content and exercise editorial judgment. I don't think there's a restriction that a particular employee can only be the editor for one publication at a time, though you'll note that one of the editors is the "former lead editor" for Forge, which is another Medium-owned publication. If you want to submit a correction, you contact the editors or the author. That's the nature of how their platform works. If you were hoping for like "onezero@medium.com" or something, I'm not sure if that exists or not. I also think you're playing fast and loose with the term "blog" at this point. At what point are you just describing a journalistic publication without saying the words "journalistic publication"? I'm not particularly suspicious of the editors or of Medium (website)'s motives in editorial decisions for their publications. Do you have some reason to be? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 10:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have one more comment to add about your analysis of the Chicago Tribune (CT) piece. By the way, the link is broken and the article is not on archive.org, but you can read it here. It does not violate the part of WP:ORGDEPTH that you [mis]quoted, but it still might be trivial coverage. The full statement in the orgdepth example is intended to read: brief or passing mentions, such as in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.[emphasis mine] That's not saying that a source that quotes a member of the organization, even extensively, cannot qualify as a source for the purposes of determining sigcov. It's saying that if the only mention of the organization is for the article, then that's not significant coverage. To clarify what I mean, let me give an example. Let's say, hypothetically, that Randy Savage is alive and has quit wrestling, only to start working at Arthur and Son Family Widget Company. Arthur & Son is not notable just because Savage works there, per WP:INHERITORG, and is not otherwise notable by any criteria. Now let's say Arthur & Son fires Savage for allegedly eating their widgets straight off the assembly line. A news publication later runs a story about Savage and his crippling widget-eating addiction that has now landed him in rehab. A quote in the middle of the article, attributed to the president of Arthur & Son, reads, "we just had to let him go. We were losing so many widgets."  is the passing mention that the guideline is talking about in its example. You can't create Arthur and Son Family Widget Company based on a couple of articles using that quotation as sources for notability. The CT column, on the other hand, is not attributing a quote to Underdown in his capacity as a member of CFIIG. The column is clearly about Underdown's investigative work as part of that outfit. However, it  still qualify as trivial coverage. The column is really short, and CFIIG is not mentioned by name; it's only referred to as a "team of investigators". The whole article is  "just an interview" with Underdown, although the author clearly interviewed Underdown as part of their research for the piece. If it were just an interview, it might call into question whether it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which is not something that you noted in your table above. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, but it gives some pretty good advice on how to evaluate a source that includes interview material as primary or secondary. To be secondary, a source should contain transformative thoughts, rather than just parroting what the interviewee said, with the irrelevant (in this case) exception of when the interviewee is speaking as a subject matter expert on their field of study. Anyway, this turned out longer than I expected, but the bottom line is that I'm not particularly convinced in either direction with respect to whether or not this source is appropriate for use in qualifying the subject for WP:GNG and by syllogism WP:NORG.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weird, the link works fine for me. Though it was pretty much just an interview with Underdown with little additional information (he didn't seem to contact anyone else) and is just based on quoting the guy as a story source. And to be honest I thought this was a transcribed TV news segment of some kind when I first read it since it had double hyphens instead of dashes (in the link on their website), the writing style, and the fact it's a TV journalist who is attributed as the author. Thought "oh this is one of those segments where the guy does the lead-in, interviews guy for a while, explain what guy said/will say, cuts back to new interview, elaborate, back again, so on so forth until hit the reader with kicker, it's done". It reads a heck of a lot differently with less emphasis on the interview in my head when I'm not imagining it as a TV news segment where the interview is the central part. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Tribune piece is about debunking, not the organization. The author uses someone from the organization to talk about that. There really isn't anything in-depth about the organization itself that wasn't provided by the organization itself (or the person being interviewed). This wouldn't pass WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are several issues, but addressing notability alone the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Leaning delete. That one does look self-promotional, and it is not supported by strong 3rd party RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 17 January 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.