Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Information Research (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Public Information Research
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a garbage article and should be deleted, the organization is not notable and the whole last paragraph is completely pointless - who cares about a 16-year old boardroom skirmish? Giano (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - whilst I don't think it's the most important article we have, it's certainly notable per the organisation notability guidelines.. Per the guideline - "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. " - PIR has been discussed in many secondary sources, including the New York Times making it clearly notable.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks notability and per nominator. Ripberger (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Navel gazing. ++Lar: t/c 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nuke it from high-orbit. It's the only way to be sure - A l is o n  ❤ 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment - navel gazing is not a reason for deletion, but maybe it should be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - wrong side of borderline notability according to current policies, in my book - and that brings with it attendant 'weight' issues... a browse through the history also indicates to me that we've clearly had major problems working on this article in a balanced way. Privatemusings (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - coatrack article that uses reliable sources in which one or more aspects of the organisation are secondarily or trivially mentioned to give the illusion of notability. Let's review the online references:
 * Reference #1 - Guidestar - a registration-required site that is being used to support factual information in the article, including the evidence that PIR is behind Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch, as well as PIR's revenue. If this information is not available except in a website that requires registration, that demonstrates the limited notability of the organisation.
 * Added note - When accessing this link using IE, it turns up as a registration-required site; however, using Firefox, I was able to read the site and the page for PIR. It turns out that PIR claims it earns less than $25,000 per year and thus does not file tax returns (see the "Basic information" section). GuideStar also encourages non-profits to edit/update their entries, and claims no responsibility for the content of the site. Therefore, it is not a reliable enough source to stand as the primary source for information.  Risker (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Guidestar site is well-repected among people researching nonprofit groups.  Its purpose is that it hosts the 501c3 tax forms of these organizations, so everyone doesn't have to send away to the government to get a copy of them.  I imagine even if it allows organizations to upload corrections it would flag them as such.  Nobody is suggesting the existence of such a tax form makes an organization notable, but this is an official, primary source used only for financial and organziational facts.  It's the same as citing EDGAR or Dunn and Bradstreet.  The "no legal responsibility" is a standard disclaimer used in all kinds of publications.  I'd also like to point out that notability is not temporary.  Wonder what the revenue of PIR was in the early 1990s.  Or of its forerunner, Micro Associates, during the Iran-Contra era.  Notice there were no complaints about Ref #2 - a 1988 The Nation article about Micro Associates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref.#3 - New York Times - a 1987 article that focuses primarily on the National Intelligence Book Center, which apparently no longer exists and whose notability is not clear. There are no dots connecting it to PIR, which did not exist in 1987.
 * Comment. The article is about both the National Intelligence Book Center ( which I don't think is connected to PIR, but wish we had an article about it ) and Micro Associates ( the forerunner of PIR ).  It is the second half of the NYT article we are interested in here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref.#4 - Counterpunch Minor web news service that specialises in "muckraking". Only NameBase is mentioned in the article, PIR is not mentioned at all.
 * Ref.#6 - Salon.com The article is primarily about Google, and uses Daniel Brandt as one of several commentators on problems with Google. It mentions googlewatch.com and NameBase, but not PIR.
 * Ref.#7 - New York Times. This article is about John Seigenthaler's Wikipedia article. Daniel Brandt's role is portrayed secondarily, PIR is not mentioned, only Wikipedia Watch.
 * Ref.#8 - Society of Professional Journalists/AP Not even a direct link to the AP source, to start with. No information indicating if any other news sites/newspapers/journals even picked up the AP story, or if it was only published in this one source. Neither PIR nor any of the subsidiary websites are mentioned.
 * Ref. #9 - Link to NameBase webpage Shows names of directors and advisors and identifies PIR as a 501(c)3 organisation. Does not provide any information about PIR otherwise, does not list subwebsites, does not provide financial information.
 * Ref. #11 - Public Eye.org An opinion piece, revised twice over the years, mentions Dan Brandt and NameBase in passing while focusing on "the LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby networks".
 * This is Trivial Pursuit writ large. I cannot think of another 501(c)3 organisation with an income of only $25,000/year that is worthy of a Wikipedia article, and this one isn't either. Risker (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how an organization making less than $25,000 a year could possibly be notable. Captain   panda  00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to look a little like another attempt to remove all mention of the guy running it. The sources are present. Whether the notability is 16 years ago does not make any difference to an encyclopedia. And money != influence or notability. DGG (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, not one of the non-registration reference sources listed above actually mentions Public Information Research by name. None of them link Google Watch or Wikipedia Watch to PIR. Even the link to PIR and Namebase is shaky; I know several websites that have pages devoted to not-directly-related non-profits.  My local SPCA brings in about 30 times this much money a year, and it certainly isn't notable.  Risker (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, subject has very little notability. Sticky Parkin 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to say keep and analyze the sources for notability, but I see that Risker already did. We also might want to consider deleting these two related articles, as they suffer the problems:
 * Google Watch (very little sources, only the Salon article actually centers on the website, and even that one is very centered on its creator Brandt and not the website itself)
 * Wikipedia Watch (all notable sources seem to make only passing mentions. like NYT and The Register, Miami Herald seems to be centered on something else)

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable per all above, particularly Risker's well-made argument. ~ priyanath talk 02:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no definitive assertions of notability, not worth the pain. Everyking (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, classic coatrack Bishonen | talk 07:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete basically per Risker - no point in repeating his research. Viridae Talk 07:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per previous rationales. Keeping said article almost appears to be a punishment. Minkythecat (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of reliable non-trivial independent sources. The main reason for keeping this appears to be individuals' personal feelings about Brandt.  Understandable, but not a reason for having an article. The previous AfD showed clear consensus for not having an article on this subject, merge and delete strongly overwhelmed keep. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. The last few sentences stink of a personal grudge and need to be removed, if nothing else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per cogent arguments from Lar, Privatemusings, Risker and others. (The fact that Viridae and Guy have agreed on something gives me hope for the future of Wikipedia.) FCYTravis (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, and because the article appears to push a pov. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, as demonstrated above. Fails WP:N abd WP:ORG. Hut 8.5 10:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article fails our guidelines for inclusion (WP:CORP/WP:WEB).  NameBase is at first glance more notable a topic (particularly based on Risker's arguments above), and any worthwhile information pertaining directly to NameBase could be moved there. Neıl    ☄   11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite appearing at first glance to be well referenced, after reviewing the linked citations and the comments on this AfD I find they are trivial and that the notability of the subject is dubious. Chillum  13:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the various discussions and reviews here, having looked more closely at the sourcing. rootology  ( T ) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: A non-profit with a revenue stream of less than $25,000 is pretty dern small.  The fact that the center of that center is a noted Wikipedia hater is as irrelevant to the decision on this "center" as it is to whether or not the person qualifies for a biography.  Just a company.  Utgard Loki (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Risker. Rockpock  e  t  16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ginao and Risker --Duk 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, guys, but there are sources out there in addition to what is in the article. Risker's analysis omits #5, the relevant page is online.  Check google scholar and google books, using "Public Information Research" brandt .  Take a look at , , , , , ,    Maybe merge with namebase. Also per Ryan and DGG. John Z (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JohnZ, for that additional research. When I was posting yesterday, I was on a restricted computer so couldn't access Google Scholar or Google Book. Let's review these new potential sources.


 * Ref. #5 United States History: A Multicultural, Interdisciplinary Guide to Information Services. A. Perrault et al. Libraries Unlimited, 2003. One-paragraph entry focused on NameBase in a 661-page reference work containing "1,250 major entries as well as hundreds of co-entries and minor entries." (preface, p.xviii)
 * Toxic Burn: The Grassroots Struggle Against the WTI Incinerator, Thomas Shevory. University of Minnesota Press, 2007. Two paragraphs in a 288-page book, focused on NameBase. The reference source for the material is the Counterpunch article above at Ref.#4.
 * Google Power: Unleash the Full Potential of Google, Chris Sherman. McGraw Hill Professional, 2005. One-page entry in an appendix, describing Google Watch's nomination of Google for Privacy International's "U.S. Big Brother Awards", and pointing to another article that refuted the claims made by Google Watch.
 * (Editorial - Computerized and networked government information column) Developments in U.S. Federal E-Government Efforts, Juri Stratford. Journal of Government Information, Volume 30, Issues 5-6, 2004, Pages 542-547. Unable to review, as the link is pay-for-access.
 * "In March 2002, Daniel Brandt, president of Public Information Research, discovered that the CIA Web site was using “cookies” in violation on federal policy" is the gscholar preview on this one.John Z (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyright and the Universal Digital Library, an apparently unpublished research paper written by a person associated with Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, on the topic of how Google Books may affect the Universal Digital Library project. Daniel Brandt, Google Watch, and PIR are referred to in one sentence of the 18-page paper. Quote from the paper: "In December 2004, Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research (PIR) and www.google-watch.org wrote a letter to Maurice Freedman of the American Library Association (ALA) urging ALA to pressure the libraries participating in Google Print to require Google to respect the anonymity of users of the digitized library books (Brandt 2004)." (Reference source: Brandt, Daniel (December 15, 2004). Letter to Maurice Freedman, American Library Association. Public Interest Registry (PIR). Available: http://www.google-watch.org/appeal.html ). Several other references to Google-Watch in the article.
 * Google and privacy, Paul S. Piper. Internet reference services quarterly (ISSN 1087-5301), 2005, vol. 10, no 3-4 (232 p.). [Article: 9 pages (5 ref.)], pp. 195-203. Unable to review, as the link is pay-for-access. Note: French website, although the article was written by an author affiliated with College of Arts and Sciences, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.
 * Secrecy and Accountability in U.S. Intelligence, a paper prepared for a seminar on intelligence reform sponsored by the Center for International Policy in 1996. Used as a footnote for this sentence: "But in these cases and others, the public attitudes that eventually precipitated declassification became so deeply rooted that they have not been discernably affected by the release of the old documents. In this way, current classification policy promotes public stupidity. (42)."  The footnote, one of 53, reads: "Conspiracy-mongering as a strategy for promoting declassification may have already reached its peak, as the threshold for outrageousness becomes unachievably high and public discourse becomes increasingly incoherent. Today, "No one is willing to read 20 books on the CIA when they can watch 20 episodes of 'The X Files,' and have more fun doing it," writes Daniel Brandt of Public Information Research . The result is a problem that Mr. Brandt terms 'Why Johnny Can't Dissent.' "
 * Über den Suchgiganten Google oder die Antwort auf die Frage: Wird Google auch zukünftig den Suchmaschinenmarkt beherrschen?, Susanne Richter. Apparently an online seminar sponsored by Freie Universität Berlin (Kommunikationswissenschaften), ISBN: 978-3-638-36184-2. The website and the article are in German, and the link is pay-for-access, so unable to review. A loose translation of the title is "About the search engine giant Google or the answer to the question: Will Google will continue to dominate the search engine market?"
 * Here's a better (free) link for this one. PIR is referred to only as one of 31 organizations urging Google to suspend Gmail in an open letter (in English). Hadn't had a chance to look at it yesterday.John Z (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I am still not seeing significant coverage of PIR, although one or two of these references might be useful for the articles on the specific websites. Even the links provided to pay-for-access sites are unlikely to yield much more than a few footnotes or perhaps a paragraph within a much larger work, and they look to be mostly Google-focused.  Risker (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems sufficient to me, in addition to what's in the article already, at least to support a merge and redirect. Toxic Burn has the information, not in the article or in Counterpunch, that PIR dates to the early 70's under the name Micro Associates, and is a bit more than just on NameBase.  My interest in these matters is less than zero, but I think one should beware of applying standards too strictly to a case like this (navel taboo?), of deletion based on difficulty of writing a neutral article (how can people learn to write neutrally other than by working on difficult cases?) and of sorites - type reasoning..  So it seems more logical to keep this article, as the umbrella organization, and merge (some of) the various projects, Wikipedia Watch, Google Watch, NameBase, Navel Watch etc into it. Clearly this would result in fewer articles, and arguably this would result in less NGPOV than just deleting this article.John Z (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Risker's excellent reasoning. Naerii 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the above. Great job Risker. Tex (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Risker and Giano. While related entities might be somewhat notable, PIR fails WP:CORP as far as I can see. I have a suspicion that NGPOV (navel-gazing point of view) is the major reason we keep this around. We don't like WR, so we keep the article so we can have someplace to talk about Brandt & Co. In the greater world, it's just not that important. Kylu (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's time for Wikipedia to grow up and remove articles on people that nobody would care about apart from their being related to Wikipedia. (And to answer the "what about Jimmy Wales" question, when people start paying to see D.B. speak on the lecture circuit, then we can have an article about him.) --B (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Image:Public Information Resarch.GIF - Nonfree content logo, to be deleted if the article is. Kylu (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Risker. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete mostly per Risker. Two reservations: (i) Counterpunch is more significant than Risker suggests (it's actually pretty good) -- but its article doesn't mention this company; (ii) I'm grateful that the WP article told me of "L Fletcher Prouty", a name I'd have assumed was thought up by or for Groucho Marx. (Yes, so much of the US seems to have been thought up by or for Groucho. But I digress.) John Z's assiduously collected little mentions go to show that PIR has above-zero significance, but to me they don't say much more. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How many references do you need to prove notability?-- Poetlister 12:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just enough to support what is being said, the problem is that the references are not really doing that, see all the other comments above. Chillum  15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the number of references, but what type of references and what they're referencing. Can you prove that PIR meets the requirements at WP:CORP? If so, share and (potentially) fix the article. Kylu (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's non-notable, and "Daniel Brandt wants it deleted" is not sufficient to keep it, although it is tempting.  Horologium  (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Risker and the non-notability thing. Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Risker's said it best. Wizardman  00:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, and merge NameBase into it. Organization has importance outside WP.  I don't care what certain Wikipedians think of it, it ( with NameBase ) has been around for a long time; I've seen it featured in a Whole Earth catalog circa 1990.  Last paragraph is particularly important, shows relationship between PIR and various other investigative or specialized media outlets.  Notable part of the alternative media, and has plenty of references. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's another source; a magazine called Online apparently did an entire article about PIR and NameBase in September 1996, entitled NameBase tracks lesser-known political players.  Here's abstracts from HighBeam  and EBSCO.  From the above debate, it sounded like people wanted an article that focused entirely on PIR.  Well, here it is.  Now can we stop the silliness? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the sources provided, including the article cited by Squidfryerchef above, indicate sufficient coverage of this organization in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 02:10, 21 July 2008 (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.