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)[reply]

Disclose.tv

Disclose.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Logically has been cited by other reliable sources such as

WP:RSN if you wish. Isi96 (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: Thank you for your input, @

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: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

talk) 03:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: @

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)[reply

]

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! :)

talk) 04:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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.

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: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.

talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"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)[reply

]

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?

talk) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 16:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG per sources listed by Isi96.  // Timothy :: talk  21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage in
  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.[reply
  ]

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.