Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disclose.tv

Disclose.tv

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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 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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

Logically has been cited by other reliable sources such as The Guardian [1], The New York Times [2], The Washington Post [3], NPR [4] and others. You could bring it to WP:RSN if you wish. Isi96 (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 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)[reply]

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)[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! :) DiamondPuma (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]

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. 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]

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 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)[reply]