Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative Project on Terrorism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Of note is that notions herein about article improvements can continue to be discussed on the article's talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative Project on Terrorism[edit]

Investigative Project on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Noncompliance, and failure to meet criteria for notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Atsme☯Consult 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Per Binksternet.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reasons in my comment below. Atsme☯Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Binksternet, I'm a little confused by your vote to "keep" the article considering two months ago you stated: I'm in favor of moving this article to Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation as you suggest, and having the Emerson biography corrected to reflect accurate secondary sources (rather than self-serving primary sources) but I'm not so hot on the idea that all of Emerson's former activities should be fully removed from this article. We should tell the reader what came before, and how it is related. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Diff is here: [1]. The foundation itself has no notability without Steven Emerson attached, and no one would know anything about it if it weren't for their own press releases, and self-published websites. Anything readers need to know about Emerson's work prior to 2006 can be found in Steven Emerson, and if it isn't there, it can be added. The IPT article is supposed to be about a notable nonprofit organization - The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation that was organized in 2006 - anything prior to that time belongs to Steven Emerson. There simply aren't enough reliable secondary sources, and no third party sources that substantiate the Foundation's notability. Notability for an organization is neither inherent, nor inherited. The "reliable" sources you cited above are not neutral, particularly Deepa Kumar. D. Pipes is more neutral. Regardless, where is the balance? There simply are no secondary sources available to present a neutral, well-balanced article. One editor violated WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to create the infobox. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a WP:Coatrack. If you believe the sources you cited are all that's needed to improve the article, please improve it. However, as the lead editor, I can assure you will find major obstacles trying to find reliable secondary sources that support the Foundation. All you will find are self-published press releases, original docs from Congressional hearings, and Emerson's television interviews. In fact, a while back you deleted the sections I included for neutrality as follows: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.), and also another one: (Undid revision 600924125 by Atsme (talk) The group also eats lunch. We don't tell the reader about unimportant activities such as this one with little reaction in the media.). Diffs are here: [2] The comments you made then still hold true today. The article lacks notability, so I don't understand why you are voting to keep it now. Atsme☯Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A move discussion is very different from a deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was easier to simply delete this one since I've already included the relevant sections to be moved to the new article, and requested collaboration, aka HELP. Atsme☯Consult
You don't delete it before you move or after. Moving as in Moving the article to a new title or simply renaming the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You delete noncompliant articles that are riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation like this one.Atsme☯Consult 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't delete and recreate. It's puzzling your desire here to recreate when you are seperately arguing that the topic is not notable. If it is not notable now then how would it suddenly become notable 5 minutes later when you go to recreate it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It really is sad that you can't see the problem, but then you don't edit main articles - you edit Talk pages to harass editors who do edit main articles. Do you even know how to write prose? Prior to becoming a Foundation, IPT was Steven Emerson. As IPT, the article violates policy. Read the policy. Atsme☯Consult 14:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above. The nomination is the delete !vote; multiple !votes are not allowed. NorthAmerica1000 02:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google news search reveals 166 results.[3] and a Reliable Sources Search Engine yields 100 results (the maximum allowed). Before someone (incorrectly) cites WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to general Google searches, not Google News searches which indexes sites which tend to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What did you search? Can you be more specific? Did you look at any of the search results? It's easy to say I did a search for IPT, and 6,000 results came back, but how are you determining reliability and neutrality? Are you searching for the Investigative Project on Terrorism because if you are, you are searching for the wrong organization. That will bring up all kinds of garbage. The only legal organization is The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, so if the word Foundation isn't coming up in your search results, your results are not accurate. That's the whole point of this delete request. The article is noncompliant starting with the first sentence. Please, can we at least try to put some effort into getting it right? Atsme☯Consult 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you click on the link provided[4] Are you saying that there are two organizations, one named "Investigative Project on Terrorism" and another named "Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation"? If so, then yes my search was faulty. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • A Quest For Knowledge Yes, and why the article has major issues. IPT is Steven Emerson, a "doing business as", a dba - him and him alone. IPT inherited Emerson's notability which is against policy. The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is the nonprofit "organization" legally formed in 2006, and determined to be a charity by the IRS. The article is riddled with inaccuracies, bad sourcing, and misinformation. I've been trying to fix this mess. Atsme☯Consult 14:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, the situation appears to be more complicated than I first thought. I'm (temporarily) striking through my keep !no vote until I have time to research this further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm confused by all the tags. You're wanting to delete, you want to merge and you want to move. Which is it? Also, I agree with a previous comment that deleting and recreating is not necessary. If an article isn't notable now, how does recreating it change that? I would, however, agree that the article as is requires a huge makeover. That said, it is not such a daunting task that a couple of well-sourced edits couldn't fix. Kobuu (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been reading the various responses to this discussion and I felt that I should further explain my vote. I am not following the backstory, the edit war, or anything else. I am part of WP:Cleanup and came here because this article was listed on the main Clean Up page. My question is this: Why would you request that a team of editors clean up the article and then, at the same time, nominate that article for deletion?? The same reasoning keeps being repeated but it seems that the answers aren't being followed. The sources provided are reliable and can be sourced to greatly improve this article. All that aside, however, again, why would you ask for help editing this article and then propose merging, moving and deleting? Kobuu (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject has received significant coverage from at least two reliable sources, all be it highly critical of the subject (Salon, Politico), among a plethora of other reliable sources (easily found by searching for the subject of this article up for AFD). On top of that, in regards to this draft guideline, WP:PUBLISHER (lets call it an essay for our purposes), the subject's publications been highly cited in books (example), and journals (including scholarly ones). Therefore, based on what I can find, the subject appears to be notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- I move for a speedy keep under Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#Applicability 2A, 2C, and 2D. This is just another chapter in a story that dates back to March. This is Frivolous, vexatious, simply an outright abuse of process. Atsme is simply using this to end an editing dispute. This is also the second deletion discussion. The prior one took place on Steven Emerson's talk page here's the diff and and here it is archived. The user also canvassed 3 other editors to that conversation. Only one came and only to mention that she did canvass. The user currently has a new merge proposal on Talk:Steven_Emerson. The user is trying to remove any link to the article on IPT from Steven Emerson article as seen here. This has been on ANI 3 times. It's been been raised elsewhere. This is all about a Template on page about Islamophobia. An RFC in March seen here and archived here resulted in a consensus that this template was not a npov violation. After march 26 she didn't make further response edits there until June 22. On June 29 she removed that template again though it's strangely absent from her editing summary. She removed it again some time after that. If this page is deleted and recreated under a different name it will lose it's editing history on the article page and the talk page. The consensus that the template is not an NPOV violation goes with it. There by removing Atsme's need to get consensus to remove the template. There really so much more to say but I'm actually tired of repeating myself and this should enough for a speedy keep.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - please, before another vote is cast, try to understand the following: IPT is Steven Emerson - it was not a legal "organization" - it is a dba for Emerson, and without him, it has no notability. The only legal "organization" was formed in 2006 named The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION. It is the ONLY nonprofit organization that Emerson has any connection to, and he is the Executive Director, but there are other people involved in the Foundation, not just Emerson as with IPT which is nothing more than a dba for Steven Emerson. IPT inherited notability from Steven Emerson - without him, there is no notability. All the sources that are being cited above refer to Steven Emerson dba IPT, and NOT the legal foundation the article is supposed to be covering. I am working on establishing notability for the FOUNDATION, otherwise it is Emerson dba IPT. By keeping the article as is, you are giving Steven Emerson two articles on Wikipedia. You are not seeing the true picture here. Atsme☯Consult 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's not a legal organization. The American Bar Association is a legal organization. Even if anyone was to consider your logic there's a flaw in it overall. WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. That fact that it's 1995 founding is mentioned does nothing for your deletion position.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's premises are incorrect. Policy is to fix, rather than delete, articles that are imperfect. See WP:PRESERVE. Nor is the argument persuasive that sources have to use the word "Foundation", or that they have to post-date the official incorporation date of the current formal entity, to be relevant to the topic. The nominator has received advice from multiple editors at WP:VPM (and now here in this AfD), but seems unwilling to accept it. There is no policy violation here, and certainly nothing that can't be addressed through normal editing processes. Rather than further blizzards of words, the nominator should take a little time to review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the nominator's premises are absolutely correct. To begin, we don't need two articles on Steven Emerson, so the delete request for IPT is valid. Emerson is IPT. Editors here are clearly having difficulty understanding policy, and what inherited notability means. IPT inherited Emerson's notability, and cannot stand on its own. Without Emerson, what do you have? Simple answer: all that remains is the legally formed charity - The IPT FOUNDATION which was organized in 2006 with Steven Emerson acting as Executive Director. There are no reliable secondary sources that meet the criteria of the FOUNDATION's notability because the media isn't writing about it. What you'll find are books criticizing Emerson, dba IPT, which has nothing to do with the Foundation. Again - inherited notability. Where are the secondary sources that provide neutral information about the Foundation less Steven Emerson? You cannot fix the existing article because (1) it is named incorrectly, (2) it is full of violations, and (3) it has inherited notability - all are policy violations. I can't for the life of me figure out why editors are having such a difficult time understanding the problem. PLEASE, read the policy Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) - NO INHERENT NOTABILITY - NO INHERITED NOTABILITY. It can't be any more obvious. Atsme☯Consult 15:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Tamlar Tesser, Ray Locker, would be disapointed to find out this. Steve Emerson and a foundation is all there is. No Pete Hoekstra and no Lorenzo Vidino. And I don't think that Fox, Forbes, or The NY times Got the memo. There are numerous sources that make the case for notability. But there isn't much for your case. And your actions betray your cause. You open this to delete, on Steven Emerson talk you opened your second merge proposal, and at the same time you are trying to edit the Steven Emerson Article to scrub it of Investigative project on Terrorism. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your first link absolutely validates my entire point - Tamar Tesler, a senior analyst with the Investigative Project, a conservative group that studies terrorist organizations.... Thank you again!! To begin the article was written in 2005 and identifies The Investigative Project, NOT the Investigative Project on Terrorism, or The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. By combining them, you are violating WP:SYNTH. The Investigative Project was Steven Emerson's think tank, so what makes you think it has the notability for its own article? Teslar's two or three sentence opinion in a NY Times article is trivial, and does nothing to establish notability. Your second link is a FOX News report that states: But Ray Locker, managing director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, told MyFoxNY.com that even in 1999, news outlets reported on possible ties between HLF and terror organizations. So tell me, how does an incident from 1999 relate to the Foundation today, and how does that establish notability for the Foundation? In 1999, Steven Emerson was an independent expert on Terrorism with "think tank" and a production company that produced documentaries. It has nothing to do with the Foundation's work from 2006 forward. You are grasping at straws, and I can assure you, every source you try to include will end up with the same or similar critique except for a mere handful. Policy clearly states: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Not one source cited in the arguments to KEEP this article can be considered reliable sources to establish notability as I just demonstrated with the links you provided. The majority if not all will refer back to Emerson. Don't you get it?? However, the FOUNDATION is A SEPARATE ENTITY, it was "born" in 2006. Anything prior to that time, or directly related to Emerson prior to his becoming Executive Director of the Foundation belongs in his bio. The Foundation and IPT are NOT one in the same. The Investigative Project is Steven Emerson, and so is The Investigative Project on Terrorism as I tried to explain before your reverts in Steven Emerson. The Foundation is the only true separate entity, and it should have its own accurately named article provided it meets the criteria for NOTABILITY. Everything else needs to be merged into Steven Emerson because it's just not notable enough to be stand alone. Atsme☯Consult 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The investigative project is another known name for IPT.This is from IPT's website with an indication that it is from them and this is the original from WSJ. They list the name as The investigative project. IPT claim themselves to be founded in 1995 [5]. This source meets reliability guidelines under wp:sps. In addition a number of other sources say the same thing. IPTF as you differentiate it is tied directly to IPT. IPTF funds IPT work. There is no legitimate differentiation between the 2. This is from 2005 before your 2006 non-profit incorporation. It indicated that Steven Emerson was the Executive director of the Investigative Project. Again another known name for the investigative project on Terrorism. While you try to differentiate the two you fail to do so. As far as on the Steven Emerson page, You are trying to remove any content that refers to IPT while on talk page you are trying to have it merged. Here you trying to have it deleted. Your removal of the content while trying to achieve a consensus on the content in multiple locations is an all out bad call on your part. But I'm done here unless anything comes up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And therein the problem lies. You don't get it. A legally recognized charity, aka Foundation, is a SEPARATE ENTITY. You really need to read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Your comments above prove you don't know what you're talking about. Hopefully there will be some input from editors who actually do understand the differences, and WP policy requirements for notability. I have been unable to help you understand what it means to be a separate entity. Atsme☯Consult 21:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - before you post an opinion or your comment, please read the Funding Section at Investigative Project on Terrorism. You should see immediately why the article has a serious COI, and needs to be deleted. IPT is not The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation. It is IPT, which is the dba of Steven Emerson, it is not a nonprofit charity because the funding is provided to IPT by the charity. The COI then begs the question, who the heck is IPT? Short answer - Steven Emerson, and his website. It's a mess. Atsme☯Consult 06:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism&oldid=1144345640"