Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disclose.tv


 * 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. There is consensus here that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Editors are welcome to continue discussing the other issues that have been raised here in appropriate forums (e.g. the article's talk page). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Disclose.tv

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

I've done a breakdown of the bad sourcing currently used in this article on its talk page yesterday and created this account for AfD.

Almost all sources in the article come down to a short mention of the website's in a list of fake news / conspiracy website no further information or analysis, as well as predate September 2021 since when the website relaunched as a news aggregator; or shortly mention Disclose.tv as the secondary source of a screenshot or headline in their role as an aggregator.

There's two sources used in the article actually discussing Disclose.tv. The first is an article by Logically (company), which in parts acts as a primary source due to the author's own interaction with the staff of the website, and in large parts doesn't even discuss the website's content but their Telegram and (since defunct) Discord channels. The other coverage is an article by Deutsche Welle which in large parts quotes the Logically article author.

I can't find any other reliable sources discussing the website or coverage on its interaction with Logically. The closest thing is this article by Media_Bias/Fact_Check which discusses the Logically article and contradicts the current classification of Disclose.tv as fake news website, but isn't considered a reliable source.

What this comes down to is that the current iteration of the article basically is a rewrite of the Logically article with some WP:OR thrown in regarding the aforementioned other sources. I don't see how this is more notable than any of the website listed on List of fake news websites.

Also as pointed out by others on the talk page, it seems notable that the article was nominated and accepted for WP:DYK after only three days after creation and a single editor working on it. SenorCar (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Conspiracy theories, COVID-19, Websites,  and Germany.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The Logically piece discusses the site's content in detail, including its pushing of anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown narratives, and the DW piece has additional info not in the Logically piece, such as interviews with German researchers about the website.
 * For reference: https://www.logically.ai/articles/disclose.tv-conspiracy-forum-turned-disinformation-factory, https://www.dw.com/en/disclosetv-english-disinformation-made-in-germany/a-60694332
 * Both Logically and DW are reliable sources. Logically has been certified by the International Fact-Checking Network.
 * There are plenty of other reliable sources cited, including Snopes, Health Feedback and PolitiFact, so there's no original research involved. Also, DYK allows recently-created articles to be nominated. Isi96 (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, there are more sources cited in the article, and the vast majority of them come down to the mention of the website alongside 20 other fake news websites and predate their relaunch. I've gone through the currently used sources on the article's talk page. That makes the website notable for List of fake news websites, but what warrants its own article? Right now almost all paragraphs of the article contain a variation of "Logically says that..." because there's no real other coverage besides them and the DW article. That's on top of Logically being the primary source cited for calling them a fake news website, which seems WP:UNDUE (e.g. AP calls Disclose.tv a media site and Snopes calls them "conspirational" while citing the MBFC article mentioned above).
 * I was actually about to generally question the reliability of Logically. The certification of their fact checking doesn't automatically make them a generally reliable source for content from their blog and investigations. Ironically enough, their website seems to have no list of authors writing for them and the link to the author's website profile in the Disclose.tv article leads to a 404 page, and seemingly has so since the article's publication. I can't find many publications beyond the DW article actually citing them either, and don't think their reliability has been discussed before. SenorCar (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Logically has been cited by other reliable sources such as The Guardian, The New York Times , The Washington Post , NPR and others. You could bring it to WP:RSN if you wish. Isi96 (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you for your input, @Isi96. While it's true that the Logically and DW articles discuss Disclose.tv's content and present certain perspectives, it's essential to maintain a balanced and comprehensive view of the subject. It's important to remember that Disclose.tv has been cited by a variety of reputable news organizations [1][2][3][4], as acknowledged even by Logically AI and DW; its popularity [5][6]. In fact, Disclose.tv has a broader reach and is more popular than Logically, with its content being used as a primary source in numerous reliable and reputable media outlets as cited above. Let's imagine that this also allows Disclose.tv to pass WP:GNG
 * For reference: https://www.logically.ai/articles/disclose.tv-conspiracy-forum-turned-disinformation-factory
 * The overemphasis on the minority viewpoint from Logically in the current article does not accurately represent a reasonable balance between the majority opinion on Disclose.tv. By predominantly relying on Logically as a primary source, the article presents a skewed and non-neutral perspective that does not align with Wikipedia's commitment to balancing significant viewpoints as required by the Neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
 * While Logically and DW are sources, and Logically is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), it's worth noting that Wikipedia does not explicitly list Logically as a reliable source. Although an organization officially recognized by Wikipedia may certify Logically, this does not automatically extend their reliable and reputable status to organizations certified by the IFCN. Consequently, we must be cautious when relying on Logically as a primary source.
 * Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that the author of the Logically article, W. F. Thomas, has a hyperlink that leads to a blank page with no bio, credentials, or information [7]. This lack of transparency and attribution goes against journalistic standards and ethics. Interestingly, Logically seems to be engaging in the same ghostwriting practices that they found Disclose.tv doing at the time of writing.
 * In addition, we must acknowledge concerns about Logically raised by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker. Thacker reveals their complex connections to government intelligence, partnerships with social media giants, and questionable personnel choices. These persuasive arguments warrant further scrutiny of Logically as a reliable source, which should be considered when including their content in Wikipedia articles [8].
 * Additionally, although Snopes, Health Feedback, and PolitiFact are cited, the article's focus on controversies could still create a skewed representation of Disclose.tv.
 * Lastly, while WP:DYK does allow recently-created articles to be nominated, the nomination process is separate from assessing the article's neutrality, notability, and adherence to Wikipedia's content policies. In light of the severe bias and partisanship in the current article, it appears unlikely that it can be reasonably edited to align with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality. As such, deletion may be the most appropriate course of action to uphold the quality standards of the encyclopedia and ensure that the content we present is reliable, balanced, and adheres to the highest standards. DiamondPuma (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: @DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I appreciate your concern, @Isi96, and I'd like to clarify my editing pattern. While I do have a genuine interest in the Disclose.tv article, such as yourself, my intention is to contribute constructively and uphold Wikipedia's principles of accuracy and neutrality.
 * As for Liz's warning, I've taken it to heart, learning and adapting my approach to better align with Wikipedia's guidelines. I have spent much of my time reviewing the rules and better understanding Wiki Policy. I see you too have made errors and received warnings, but that should not discredit the value of our contributions.
 * It is natural for editors to have a specific area of interest or expertise, and my focus on certain topics does not necessarily imply bias or a hidden agenda.
 * Please, feel free to reply to any of my points raised so we can both work together towards our common goal of enhancing this invaluable resource. Thanks! :) DiamondPuma (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Substack post in question is a self-published source, so it isn't reliable. It was also shared by none other than Disclose.tv, which makes it even more suspect. Isi96 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, @Isi96. While concerns about self-published sources are valid, let's remember that Paul D. Thacker's Substack post is backed by his reputation as an award-winning investigative journalist and established subject-matter expert.
 * We should evaluate content based on its merits rather than simply dismissing it due to its origin or who else has shared it. Ad hominem attacks are misleading and disingenuous. Our goal is accuracy and neutrality. Remember: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
 * Furthermore, Ad hominem attacks on my credibility and Thacker's work are unfortunate and may violate Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" policy (WP:NPA). Putting this aside, let's focus on content and arguments and engage in constructive dialogue to address raised issues.
 * Thacker's expertise and publication history in reliable sources make his post worth considering, despite potential contentions. His works have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Huffington Post Investigations, the Los Angeles Times, and BMJ to name a few. He is also cited by his peers from Harvard University Law and countless other peer reviewed journals. The sources for which you may find at the bottom of his Wikipedia page. Meaning, that Paul Thacker’s self-published content overwhelmingly passes the WP:GNG litmus test.
 * However, this is moot. The main issues with the Disclose.tv article are bias and undue weight on certain viewpoints, which violate Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). Although there are concerns and glaring issues in the topic of sourcing from Logically and others, I’m sure you agree that the self-evident bias and lack of neutrality is what’s most gravely concerning. The article cannot be reasonably rewritten considering its skewed characterization.
 * To more concisely address these problematic concerns, below I will restore my concise and articulate AfD advocacy, which you deleted as a "wall of text," which does not constitute a wall of text under the Wikipedia:Wall of text essay (it doesn't meet criteria for excessive length, disruptive content, or irrelevance). I am reasonably allowed to comment several times, as long as my opinion remains consistent which it has in accordance with HELP:AFD. In the future, please consider replying or tagging before deleting. You may also consider using my Talk page. I will restore and reformat my advocacy to better align with established formatting and be more focused.
 * Given the article's bias and partisanship, combined with ad hominem attacks, it seems unlikely we can edit it to align with Wikipedia's policies. Deletion might be the best course to ensure reliable, balanced content meeting high standards. DiamondPuma (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore, Ad hominem attacks on my credibility and Thacker's work are unfortunate and may violate Wikipedia's "No Personal Attacks" policy (WP:NPA)." That's interesting, I never mentioned your credibility in my reply, just that Disclose.tv shared the Substack post in question. It seems like you have a conflict of interest with regards to Disclose.tv. Isi96 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to the claim that my account is an SPA, it's crucial to focus on the substance of the points raised rather than making unsupported assumptions about my intentions. I have contributed to a wide variety of articles across different subjects. I have been actively involved in Wikipedia discussions and have collaborated with other editors. With proper due-diligence, this is self-evident.
 * As you mentioned, "@DiamondPuma seems to be a WP:SPA, with several of their edits being in relation to the Disclose.tv article, including vandalism, for which they previously received a warning from @Liz. Isi96 03:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)" I have provided a detailed reply to the above statement and claims in the COI dispute you initiated.
 * Now, it would be constructive to address the more pressing concerns that have been raised. Can we commit to engaging in a meaningful and solution-oriented dialogue? DiamondPuma (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn’t apply to both the WaPo and Times of Israel references he provided, though. SenorCar (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but those references just include tweets from Disclose.tv, and don't mention the site otherwise. Isi96 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reputable and accredited organizations that also find Disclose.tv equally as reliable and reputable, to be able to use them as a source in their articles, bears direct evidence to the need of a more neutral article. For which, the current article self-evidently is not. It disproportionately gives weight to a minority opinion on the topic. DiamondPuma (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reputable and accredited organizations that also find Disclose.tv equally as reliable and reputable" The sources you mentioned don't comment on Disclose's reliability. Also, not everything Disclose publishes is disinformation, as mentioned in the DW and Logically articles cited. It pushes a mix of conspiracy content and real news.
 * "It disproportionately gives weight to a minority opinion on the topic." How? You have not cited any sources that state Disclose is a reliable source, and most of the sources I was able to find identified Disclose as a purveyor of disinformation. Do you have sources that say otherwise? Isi96 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Logically is a reliable source, per my comments above. It is supported by the DW reference as well, and there are plenty of other reliable sources cited in the article. Isi96 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether a site is a reliable source is a completely different question than whether it is a reliable source notable . None of the links above establish notability. A source could be cited scores, even hundreds of times, as "reliable" but if there is not substantive, independent, secondary coverage of the site itself, it is not notable. Banks Irk (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Whether a site is a reliable source is a completely different question than whether it is a reliable source." What do you mean here? Isi96 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed it. It's not intuitive, but a source might be reliable without being notable. A lot of the discussion here has focused on whether it is a reliable source, not whether the article fits the requirements of GNG. There is virtually no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Simply being cited is not significant coverage, no matter how many times it happens. Banks Irk (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites at least a dozen RS. The in-depth Deutsche Welle article and Logically article were both from 2022, after the relaunch. Questions about how the article should describe incidents before the 2021 relaunch could be addressed at the article page or on noticeboards. Llll5032 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While the article is way too reliant on Logically, I think there's plenty of sourcing to make this notable: keep. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG per sources listed by Isi96.  // Timothy :: talk  21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in Deutsche Welle quoting WP:PRIMARY is the very definition of WP:SECONDARY so don't see why it should be discredited MetricMaster (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.

Delete: I hope this message finds everyone well. As we join forces to uphold the integrity of our valued encyclopedia, I would like to kindly share my perspective on the Disclose.tv article and respectfully present a compelling case for its deletion. This course of action is in harmony with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, falling under the Five Pillars and the "Wikipedia is Not" (WP:NOT) policies.


 * WP:5P2 Neutrality (WP:NPOV) & Inability to Address Severe Issues (WP:AfD & WP:PROD): Upon closer examination, the article appears to disproportionately emphasize the criticisms and controversies surrounding Disclose.tv. While reporting on such aspects is essential, we all recognize the importance of a balanced representation to ensure adherence to the principles of neutrality. Given the limited availability of reliable sources and the article's skewed focus on controversies, it becomes evident that the article cannot be reasonably edited to align with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality. In such circumstances, deletion emerges as the most appropriate solution.


 * Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE): Scrutinizing the article's strong dependence on Logically and Deutsche Welle articles, we can see that this leads to disproportionate emphasis on their viewpoints. The fact that most of the content originates from these two sources, particularly the Logically piece, distorts the representation of Disclose.tv and obstructs a balanced perspective. We can all appreciate the necessity of incorporating diverse sources and presenting information in proportion to its significance.


 * WP:5P3 Collaborative editing environment (WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND): We all treasure a harmonious and collaborative editing process here on Wikipedia. Regrettably, the actions of user Isi96 such as Ad hominem attacks both on editors and sources, have created a hostile editing environment that hinders cooperation and obstructs the development of a balanced and neutral article. This situation is incompatible with the collaborative spirit that we cherish, and it goes against the WP:NOT policy, which clearly states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or battleground.

In summary: envisioning the points mentioned above, including neutrality, inability to address severe issues, undue weight, and the collaborative editing environment, as well as the principles outlined in the "Wikipedia is Not" policy, I warmly invite you to consider supporting the deletion of the Disclose.tv article. By embracing this course of action, we can preserve the integrity of Wikipedia and ensure that the content we present is reliable, balanced, and adheres to the highest standards. DiamondPuma (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You make some interesting observations above, but you don't state your sources. Is the above based on just rumor or do you have first hand knowledge of the situation? We need to understand how you can make the above assessment.  // Timothy :: talk  22:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These issues are possible to be fixed. Please see WP:DINC. RoostTC (ping me!) 12:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep The coverage is enought to keep the article, besides, the way they have been quoted prior to the DW piece is telling in itself: "… conspiracy website Disclose.tv …" – Daily Times, 2017 "Die Ufo-Website Disclose.tv … (The UFO-Website Disclose.tv)" – NTV, 2015, "… Disclose.tv, a well-established disinformation site …" – medrxiv.org, April 2021, "… Disclose.tv, a site described as involved in disinformation …" –National Library of Medicine, November 2012. OrestesLebt (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thank you for your input, @OrestesLebt t. While the sources you've mentioned do highlight past controversies, it's vital to consider the broader context of Disclose.tv's evolution. Disclose.tv has transformed from a forum and content creator exclusively to a curator and aggregator of news from reputable sources on various subject matter.
 * I would suggest the creation of a history section that discusses past controversies which could indeed provide valuable context. However, the entire article being focused on controversy violates Wikipedia's undue weight (WP:UNDUE) and neutrality (WP:NPOV) policies. Characterizing Disclose.tv as a fake news website is no longer accurate, as they now aggregate content from reliable sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. It appears that they do still cover some topics within popular culture as well, which has an appeal in it's own right [13][14][15][16][17][18].
 * Given the significant policy violations and the extent to which the article's focus is skewed, I maintain that deletion is the most appropriate course of action. The current state of the article is not reflective of Disclose.tv's present contributions to the dissemination of news, and a fresh start is necessary to create a balanced and neutral representation of the platform. DiamondPuma (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling plagiarism aggregating is bold, and the history is already in the article. I have to say it seems odd to me that you went from clumsily trying to have the article deleted to expert on rules and abbreviations. You present long walls of text for a single argument that has been rejected over and over. Your account is clearly a SPA to get rid of this article. Do you have a COI? OrestesLebt (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I created a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding this user. Isi96 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not call plagiarism aggregating. I'd like to clarify that news aggregation is not the same as plagiarism. Disclose.tv has acknowledged past issues with plagiarized content but now focuses on news aggregation, crediting original sources as demonstrated in the links provided earlier. It appears that they no longer create original content. News aggregation is a well-established practice, with Google News, Yahoo News, and Bing News as examples. Claiming that Disclose.tv plagiarizes content today is either misinformed or intentionally misleading. I strongly suggest exploring the website and familiarizing yourself with its content if you intend to contribute meaningfully to the article.
 * Regarding the ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments, I encourage engagement with the points raised, rooted in Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I have no COI and have been transparent about my intentions in previous messages. When my words are misrepresented or my character called into question, I am inclined to reply. That seems to be happening more in this discussion than anywhere else. My responses aim for thoroughness in addressing the discussion's aspects. It's essential to revisit critical points when necessary. My account's goal is to uphold Wikipedia's standards and contribute fairly, not solely focusing on this article. Once-more, let's focus on maintaining Wikipedia's integrity and fostering a productive conversation. DiamondPuma (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As I just wrote on the article’s discussion page, the article may be updated once a reliable source confirms your claims. Be patient. Who knows, maybe soon the whole article will have to be put in the past tense anyway, and then it will be just a footnote in the history of misinformation. I am sorry that I hurt your feelings when I referred to your account as SPA and asked if you had a COI. I accept your statements, and encourage you to make Wikipedia better by editing rather than going after articles and editors you don’t like. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "News aggregation is a well-established practice, with Google News, Yahoo News, and Bing News as examples." True, but actual news aggregators don't push conspiracy theories and heavily slanted or misleading stories as fact.
 * "I encourage engagement with the points raised, rooted in Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV." Sure, do you have reliable sources discussing Disclose at length and saying that it isn't a purveyor of disinformation and conspiracy theories? If so, those can be added to the article as well.
 * As a side note, it's interesting that the Disclose editorial doesn't actually deny the findings of the Logically report, instead choosing to frame it as a conspiracy on their part. Also, they targeted the wrong reporter; Ernie Piper merely reached out to them regarding the report's findings, while the actual research was done by W. F. Thomas. Isi96 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep meets WP:NEXIST even if somehow every source currently cited was removed. As that is not happening, it meets WP:GNG and the stricter WP:NCORP. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Slywriter (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Deletion is not clean-up. I am sufficiently convinced by the DW and Logically sources in particular that this is a topic with significant coverage; it's always difficult to search Google for sources on media organizations, but a superficial search indicates there may also be German-language sources providing significant coverage as well. Curbon7 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't have to like something for it to meet the GNG.  Mini  apolis  23:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep:
 * The article appears to have a combination of reliable and unreliable sources. The nominators are stressing their claim that a few of the sources are unreliable.  With 28 sources, some of which are being attacked, even if those that are attacked are rejected as unreliable, it is probable that three of the sources will be found to be reliable, independent, and significant.  I will change this to a Weak Delete if the nominators provide an analysis of the sources showing a lack of coverage, although an analysis of sources is not required.
 * The intensity of the deletion discussion makes me wonder if some of the participants in the AFD are trying to right great wrongs, such as the lies being publicized by the subject web site.
 * If the subject organization is facilitating Great Wrongs, Wikipedia, which is written from a neutral point of view can better advance justice by neutrally documenting verifiable information than by deleting the article
 * I will not be surprised to see the close of this AFD discussion, regardless of what the close is, taken to Deletion Review. Unfortunately, this looks like the sort of deletion discussion that ends with an appeal to DRV, and an endorsement of the close.
 * This may be an organization that is partly famous for being famous, or known for being controversial. When in doubt as to whether a controversial organization is notable, Wikipedia should err on the side of inclusivity.
 * Consensus of uninvolved edtors is Keep As I wrote above, I don't think the subject is notable, but is clear to me that the weight and consensus of uninvolved editors above is to keep. I'm fine with that. I am also mystified and dismayed at the tone and contentiousness of this discussion by the involved editors, including the completely unnecessary and inappropriate spillover into other dramaboards. Somebody with sufficient stripes on their sleeve should close this now and put the drama to an end. Banks Irk (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ultimately, the sourcing does satisfy WP:NOTABILITY requirements. If it wasn’t for this, I would say delete. However, the subject has demonstrable notability as demonstrated by SIGCOV in independent RS. What this ultimately comes down to is whether or not the subject is notable, such that if the subject isn’t notable then the article should be deleted, whereas if the subject is notable then the article should be kept. What I see in the article and looking into the background on my own, is that the subject is indeed notable. The most important question to answer is whether or not the sources establish notability. There is a clear case to be made that the sources do establish notability. As such, the appropriate outcome is to keep the article. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2023 (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.