Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhoWhatWhy

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 no consensus. There is no agreement to either delete this article or not to Guerillero | My Talk 00:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhoWhatWhy[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets the relevant notability guideline (WP:WEBCRIT). I could find no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Several media outlets such as Salon.com reprint WWW's stories, but that isn't an indicator of notability. And I found two independent sources with trivial coverage: Mother Jones and Al Jazeera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk] contribs) 06:22, 8 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of notability is still open on the Talk page. The list of eleven sources there that cite and comment on the organization is presumably where you found the three that you mention. Pursuant to your reversion of the NOTE tag on 10/2 (which I saw on 8/7) I am putting together a more comprehensive and varied list of references. Others may want to help with this. Bn (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide only the sources you believe are independent, reliable, secondary, and containing significant coverage of WhoWhatWhy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are what I have been able to find on short notice, in addition to the 11 posted on the Talk page. All are independent and reliable secondary sources. All of them talk about Whowhatwhy and its work, beyond merely carrying a story that they published or citing them in a story of their own.

WhoWhatWhy won a Project Censored award for its story on how the FBI became aware of a plot to use snipers to kill leaders of the Occupy Houston movement, and did nothing about it. This qualifies as a "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization".

Link please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Rooney on WGBH News "Greater Boston" program (flagship PBS station in Boston) highlighted whowhatwhy.com in an interview with Russ Baker, with a focus on its coverage of Boston Marathon bombing issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyBfd0Ztjaw

Demonstrates a bit of what is involved in investigative journalism.

That's not a source about WhoWhatWhy. It's an interview with WWW founder Russ Baker about an unrelated subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other TV interviews presenting Whowhatwhy with a focus on its coverage of Boston Marathon bombing issues include OpEd News, RIA Novosti, and George Galloway’s “Sputnik” show. (Galloway is a UK Member of Parliament.)

Links please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV interviews presenting Whowhatwhy with a focus on other topics:

RT’s UK “Going Underground” news program in UK regarding the UK government’s blocking of thousands of “problematical” websites.

Link please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT from New York regarding NATO’s 65th anniversary.

Link please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio stations WBGO and WBAI interviewed Whowhatwhy reporter Bob Hennelly about his analysis of the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, and how it shared a lot of history with the Newark riots of 1967.

Link please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Influential documentarian, journalist and radio host Danny Schechter interviewed Whowhatwhy's Assistant Managing Editor Bryson Hull on Progressive Radio and MediaChannel.org about his story on the beheading of journalist James Foley.

Link please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Library named WhoWhatWhy its website of the week

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/library/links/who-what-why

That website doesn't say anything about WhoWhatWhy (let along anything about it being its "website of the week"). If this says anything about WhoWhatWhy it's an unreliable primary source without significant coverage.

A followup story on former FBI Director Louis Freeh’s car crash was the top Google and Google News search result. It outranked CBS News, NBC News, the New York Times, NPR, and even the local newspaper that had the most immediate and in-depth coverage, the Burlington Free Press.

Link please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, four items cited on the Talk page are also independent and reliable secondary sources that talk about Whowhatwhy and its work, beyond merely carrying or citing a story: Mother Jones, National Security Archive, Tom Fenton's Global Post column, and Glen Greenwald's column in the Guardian.

To call e.g. the Mother Jones references singling out the crucial role of Whowhatwhy in debunking the misinformation from Kim Novak as "trivial" misses an essential point about WP:WEBCRIT. Those criteria within WP:NOTE are framed for the general run of websites for businesses, institutions, and the like. To expect that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" is unreasonable for a news service, which by its nature publishes new content daily. The meaning of the term "trivial content" is exemplified as "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." The instances cited praising the quality of work done by the Whowhatwhy organization may at times be brief, but brevity is not the same as triviality. Bear in mind that this is a guideline, not a policy, "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Be careful that you are not "Abiding by the letter of a ... guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles".

Bn (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there should be an exception to WP:WEBCRIT for all online news sites then you are welcome to that opinion, but you won't get support from much of the community on that one. For one thing, that guideline is regularly applied to similar news sites, and for another, the "significant coverage" requirement is a principle that underlies all of our notability guidelines, including WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA (for traditional media outlets). And I simply can't see an editor reasonably concluding that any of the sources you're referring to (links: [1][2][3][4][5]) provide significant coverage of WhoWhatWhy. A mere reference or link isn't significant coverage. At a bare minimum the source has to say something about WhoWhatWhy that we can actually use to construct a meaningful article without violating WP:OR. (Notice that policy says: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.") --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice evidence of coverage as presented at Talk:WhoWhatWhy. Cheers and please take some time to breathe and smell the fresh air outside, — Cirt (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, what evidence? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments on the article talk page by Podiaebba and Bn. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, WP:PERNOM? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I read carefully over all their arguments in the discussion there and I happen to agree with everything they stated. — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is not applicable as written. It is about "material published on the web", and its primary purpose is to "avoid articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising." This article is not about web content. It is about an investigative news organization. There is no question that the content published on this website is noteworthy. The two criteria in WP:WEBCRIT are not relevant unless they are extended to apply to investigative research and reporting on newsworthy topics that happens to be published on a website. WP:ORG might be relevant. It says "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Bn (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight. So an organization whose sole mission is to maintain a website should be evaluated under WP:ORG, not WP:WEB. Ok, I'll indulge you for the sake of argument. WP:ORG says, right at the top: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. 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." WP:ORGDEPTH: On depth of coverage: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Go forth and analyze. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not paying attention. The sole mission of Whowhatwhy and its parent nonprofit corporation is not to maintain a website. It is investigative reporting, which is published initially but not at all solely on its website whowhatwhy.com. On depth of coverage, " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability."Bn (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There is no evidence that this meets the General Notability Guideline for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article extensively revised. Bn (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons previously cited, augmented by the rewrite, with more updates to come as I get time. (I do have a life.) Though it's not a voting process, I might as well make the "keep" sentiment explicit. Bn (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to specious claim of primary sources moved to Talk page per request of Nom.Bn (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 21:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that the article has been expanded and improved during the course of this deletion debate. I think that the references now in the article are sufficient to show notability, and I also consider the two Project Censored awards good evidence of notability for a news organization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, which specific references? Beware that there may have been some bombardment going on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest a way of complying with Primary criteria/Depth of coverage "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" that does not appear to you to be bombardment. 76.24.196.251 (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone reviewing that page will understand you're misconstruing that sentence and ignoring the rest of the guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this discussion to the Talk page, where it belongs. Bn (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was off-wiki for a while and just learned about this deletion discussion from a note on my talk page. I agree with the nominator that this article does not pass muster under the notability guidelines. I've reviewed the additions to the article and strongly disagree with the contention that the article has been improved to the point that it now meets the guideline requirements. The article has been padded with primary source material and original research, but the kind of coverage contemplated by the guideline just isn't there. I've run into Dr. Fleischman occasionally in other articles and can't recall once agreeing with him, but I believe he is right this time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain Core and I have seen eye to eye on past occasions, but aside from that I couldn't agree more. Revisions to an article have absolutely no bearing on the notability of the subject, which exists independently of the article. See WP:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that this article be merged with Russ Baker, but I see that that article is just as bad as this one, if not more so. Coretheapple (talk) 21:02, 2 November 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.