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 delete. Sources analyzed in the discussion don't appear to satisfy the WP:NORG standard and there were not alternative sources put forward. Since this article and its redirects have been around a long time, as an editorial action I'm going to recreate them as redirects to Center for Inquiry. RL0919 ( talk) 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Center for Inquiry Investigations Group

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

Center for Inquiry Investigations Group (  | 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)

This article fails WP:NORG and is full of promotional content. While the amount of sources are impressive, they are all complete garbage and spam. I have prepared a SIRS table (which is too large to fit into Twinkle) that individually examines every single source included in the article as of this [1] diff and demonstrates how they all fail WP:SIRS. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"CFIIG: About" No The about page for organization ~ See WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
"POINT OF INQUIRY podcast: Dec. 12, 2019" No Published by parent organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF Not going to listen to the podcast so won't judge. ✘ No
"Do Power Balance wristbands work? - Yahoo! News" No Written by someone working with the CIIIG ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF ? Can't read the article. ✘ No
"IIG Power Balance Experiment" No Published by an IIIG affiliate ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't cover the CIIIG itself. ✘ No
"Power Bracelets a Bust in IIG Test" No The CFI is the parent organization of the CIIIG ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't cover the CIIIG itself in any significant detail ✘ No
Offline source titled "Power Balance Bracelets a Bust in Tests" No Published by the Skeptical Inquirer which is owned by the CFI ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF ? If it's just an offline copy of the previous source it doesn't have sigcov, but I don't want to get a copy of the magazine to find out ✘ No
"The Anita Ikonen Report" No Published by IIG West which is a subentity of the subject of the article. ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't cover the organization in detail. ✘ No
"Light Bulb Luminosity Demonstration" No Published by the CFI, parent organization of the CIIIG ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself ✘ No
"State Sponsored Quackery Feng Shui and Snake Oil for California Nurses" No Skeptical Inquirer is run by the CFI which is the parent organization of the IIG. The contents of this article is also just a report done by the IIG. ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself ✘ No
Carla Baron, Psychic Detective? No Published by IIG West ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself ✘ No
Offline source titled "Carla Baron, Psychic Detective? Not Quite" No Published in the Skeptical Inquirer, which is owned by the CFI which is teh parent org of the CIIIG ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF Didn't want to make an evaluation as I can't read the article ✘ No
Offline source titled "TV psychics John Edward and John Van Praagh" No Also published in the Skeptical Inquirer with all that entails, but the author is also James Underdown, leader of the CIIIG ~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF Not going to evaluate as I can't read the offline source ✘ No
"How come TV psychics seem so convincing?" Yes Yes The Straight Dope is probably notable No Provides no coverage of the CIIIG itself, just mentions its leader without even mentioning said leader's affiliation with the CIIIG ✘ No
"Putting Psychics to the Test" Yes Yes No Blatantly fails the WP:ORGDEPTH requirement that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" do not satisfy ORGDEPTH. The entire article is just an interview with James Underdown, and doesn't even name the IIG as the organization that Underdown was running. ✘ No
"Psychic Mutt Discovered!" Note the previous link doesn't work at the time I created this source table, so here's the CFIIG's copy of the story: [2] No Please read WP:ORGIND, this is an example of "dependent coverage" where practically all of the info comes from the subjects themselves. It is also not a secondary source, as it written from the journalist's perspective and describes their experience and what they've directly seen and heard. This makes it a primary source and so fails WP:SIRS Yes No Does not actually provide coverage of the CFIIG. All of the coverage is of the CFI, the parent organization. It mentions James Underdown as being the executive director of the CFI - West but there is not a single mention of the CFIIG/CIIIG/IIG. ✘ No
"Skeptoid #372: Prove Your Supernatural Power and Get Rich" Yes No Pretty much the definition of an WP:SPS/self published source. This is just a transcription of someone's self published podcast. No Gives a brief mention of the IIG as an example in a list of organizations that offer prizes if one can prove a paranormal ability. WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly forbids this, saying trivial coverage encompasses "brief or passing mentions, such as: as an example of a type of company or product being discussed" ✘ No
"Hex Factor: Inside the Group Offering $250,000 for Proof of Superpowers" Yes No Medium blog post. WP:MEDIUM has had several threads that have deemed it as generally unreliable. Yes ✘ No
"IIG Challenge" No Published by IIG West ~ See WP:ABOUTSELF ? Source isn't loading for me, perhaps the internet archive is down. ✘ No
"Tyler Henry Still Silent after $250,000 Offer from L.A. Skeptics" No Made by the CFI ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Internet archive may be down ✘ No
"About the IIG Awards" No ~ Yes ✘ No
[ http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/index.html "IIG No ~ Yes ✘ No
"Skeptics at Annual Awards Ceremony" No Video of the IIG awards being presented by the IIG No Provenance of the video is questionable Not watching this video to find out ✘ No
"The Skeptic Zone #206" Yes No Literally a self published podcast Not listening to the entire podcast to find out. ✘ No
"Neil deGrasse Tyson inducted into the Houdini Hall of Honor at the IIG Awards" ? I find it hard to believe this is Neil deGrasse Tyson's YouTube channel since the channel hosting the above video has been terminated and Tyson's official channel [3] is still up. And the video, if it's not produced by Tyson, is likely produced by the IIG. No WP:YOUTUBE. ? This is likely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a non-notable award given out by the organization, but as I can't watch the video it's hard to find that out. ✘ No
[ http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2006/index.html "IIG No ~ No ✘ No
[ http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2008/index.html "IIG No ~ Not bothering to read this ✘ No
[ http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2009/20090929_pressrelease.html "IIG No ~ Not bothering to read this ✘ No
"IIG Award:Ray Hyman 2011" No Ray Hyman is on the executive council of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry which is in the same organization as the IIG. No This is just Ray Hyman speaking into his phone and directly uploading that video to YouTube. I'm not watching this whole video to find out if it's SIGCOV. ✘ No
"The Independent Investigators" ? Can't watch the video anymore No I really doubt this random video on Vimeo is reliable given that I can find no information on "New Pilgrim Productions" anywhere on the internet. ? Video is taken down. ✘ No
"Walking with the Psychic Blues" Yes No A self published podcast I am not listening to the entire thing ✘ No
"Ross and Carrie Meet Spencer!" I don't know who any of these people are and don't want to dig into them to see if they're independent. No Self published podcast Not listening to nearly 45 minutes of this, but even the article claimed there were only brief mentions of the IIG. ✘ No
The included ref is "Ghostbusters: is Hollywood a spiritual 'vortex'?", but I couldn't access that, so I used this republishing [4] as it's a wire service story by AFP. Yes Yes No Literally just two quotes from Mark Edward, a member of the IIG. See WP:ORGDEPTH where "brief or passing mentions, such as: in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," do not qualify as WP:SIGCOV. ✘ No
"MTS: Meet Ross Blocher" ? Can't see the source No Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia has performed an analysis of "Meet the Skeptics" [5] and labelled as a podcast which consists solely of an interview. This makes it not a reliable source and also not a secondary source. ? Can't actually listen to this podcast. ✘ No
"Mark Edward" No The coverage is a lengthy interview of Mark Edward and is neither independent nor is it No Self published zine of some sort. No Barely mentions the IIG. ✘ No
"Mark Edward Interview (Be Skeptical Episode 2)" No Video by IIG west ~ Not watching this. ✘ No
"MTS: Meet Mark Edward" ? Can't see as internet archive is down No A self published podcast as per [6] ? ✘ No
"The Amazing Meeting 2012: James Underdown" No An interview with James Underdown, not very independent of the subject No Just some YouTube video of an interview Not watching the whole thing to see if it's SIGCOV. ✘ No
"The Amazing Meeting 2012: Susan Gerbic No An interview with Susan Gerbic, not very independent of the subject No Just some YouTube video of an interview Not watching the whole thing to see if it's SIGCOV. ✘ No
Harold Camping 'flabbergasted'; rapture a no-show Yes Yes No Doesn't mention the IIG ✘ No
"ReasonFest11" ? Unclear who runs the blog, their about page [7] doesn't give much info. No A blog and WP:SPS, see [8] ? Can't read the source as Internet archive is down ✘ No
"James Underdown (3 of 4) @ ReasonFest 2011" No A talk given by James Underdown who runs the IIG ~ Not watching the whole thing ✘ No
"Best of Skepticamp Part 1: Mark Edward" No Note that Mark Edward is affiliated with the IIG and this is an interview, so not very independent. It's also a primary source. No This is a podcast ? Can't listen to podcast ✘ No
[ https://www.oprah.com/own-miracle-detectives/guardian-angel-video-expert-re-creation "Guardian Angel: Video Expert Re-Creation No Video segment done by James Underdown Yes It's a segment on the Oprah Winfrey Network so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt Not watching to find out if significant ✘ No
"Glen Ivy: A Study in Rational Decision Making" No Literally an IIG report ~ No ✘ No
"SoCal Para Con" ? Can't see on archive.org No Obviously a recorded livestream of a conference, and so no editorial control ? Even if I could see the livestream I wouldn't watch the entire thing to find this out. ✘ No
"Weird or What? "Mind Control War" ? ? If it's the discovery channel it's probably reliable No According to the article's description, there's Jim Underdown saying stuff at some point. ✘ No
[ https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031121/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/06/04/BadCast-Ep14 "BadCast Ep14 ? Can't see archived version No Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics Wouldn't listen even if I had access ✘ No
[ https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031027/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/03/26/BadCast-Ep04 "BadCast Ep04 ? Can't see archived version No Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics Wouldn't listen even if I had access ✘ No
[ https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031010/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/03/13/BadCast-Ep02 "BadCast Ep02 ? Can't see archived version No Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics Wouldn't listen even if I had access ✘ No
"#46 The Independent Investigations Group" ? Don't want to do research but the article mentions that the IIG was involved in the podcast No A self published podcast Wouldn't listen even if I had access ✘ No
"The IIG Awards" No ~ Yes ✘ No
"KCET Article". While I couldn't read the above source I found the IIG's description: [9] No The coverage appeared to consist of mostly interviews with IIG members, so neither independent nor secondary. Yes Yes ✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Diluted Thinking; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Conspiracy; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Superstition; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Playing Doctor; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptic Check: ESP or Think Again; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Sheer Lunacy; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptical Sunday: is Ignorance Bliss?; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Skeptical Sunday: Take a Number; The Hollywood Reality Check" No The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent. No Self published podcast. No No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV ✘ No
"Penn & Teller: Bullsh**!: Talking to the Dead Episode Summary on" ? tv.com is user-generated content No tv.com is user-generated content ? Site is down ✘ No
"Penn & Teller Bullshit! Season 1 Episode 1:Talking to the Dead (1/3) " ~ The video itself was copyright claimed but this is just James Underdown appearing on the show with Mark Edward. The coverage of them isn't independent No It's not exactly a neutral or academic source. No Highly doubt their interview meets SIGCOV. ✘ No
"Dowsing Truth or Trickery" ? Can't see the source itself anymore. Yes Judging by the URL, probably. No The claim made is that James Underdown appeared on an NBC News show. This isn't SIGCOV. ✘ No
"Divining Water: Dowsers in Big Demand During California Drought" Yes Yes No James Underdown isn't even mentioned in this source! ✘ No
"A scientific approach to the paranormal" Yes No It's a Ted talk and is a self published source No Carrie Poppy briefly mentions the IIG during her Ted talk as an example of an organization that gives out prizes to mystics ✘ No
"Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II" No The Skeptical Inquirer is owned by the same parent entity (the CFI) as the IIG ~ WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't even mention the IIG Briefly mentions the IIG in an interview question and a photo caption. ✘ No
Offline source called "CFI Investigations Group Raises Paranormal Challenge Prize to $250,000" published in the Skeptical Inquirer No It's the Skeptical Inquirer and isn't independent ~ See WP:ABOUTSELF Can't see the offline source. ✘ No
"Guest Editorials" No "The Odds Must Be Crazy" was a blog or something published by the IIG ~ See WP:ABOUTSELF ? Dunno since the site is down ✘ No
"The Odds Must Be Crazy" No This is the Facebook page that The Odds Must Be Crazy allegedly maintains No There's no proof this is even run by the The Odds Must Be Crazy so it's not even WP:ABOUTSELF reliable Yes ✘ No
"Episode: August 19th, 2014" No Extent of the coverage is that The Odds Must Be Crazy has a recurring segment on this podcast ~ It's a podcast but maybe WP:ABOUTSELF No ✘ No
"Episode 181: Unnatural Evolution Is A Funny Thing" No Extent of the coverage is that The Odds Must Be Crazy has a recurring segment on this podcast ~ It's a podcast but maybe WP:ABOUTSELF No ✘ No
"Skepticality Episode 181: The Odds Must be Crazy" No This is "The Odds Must Be Crazy" giving their take or something on the podcast. ~ Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF? ? Can't read the source ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Survey

  • Thank you Chess for putting in the work to produce that table. A news google search only lists 9 results, from either what appears to be unreliable sources or failing WP:ORGDEPTH. Google search results show wiki pages overwhelmingly for the first 2 or so pages, and then no reliable sources for the next few (I can't be bothered to look for more pages, a 6 page google search is all I did). I'll wait for a few days to give time for others to find sources just in case, but so far I don't see evidence of notability myself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    I do not have anywhere near the time necessary to verify the accuracy of all this data, but as odds would have it, I checked two randomly and found one error. "Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II" does in fact include a discussion of IIG activities. (Search IIG.) Rp2006 ( talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    It contains a single question in an interview, which makes it a primary source, and it's still not independent, so does not contribute to notability. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Honestly I was getting tired by that point. Sorry I missed the question "I understand you were part of the IIG test, testing a Flat-Earth in cooperation with Flat-Earthers?" in a magazine published by the CFI. Anyways, you don't really have to "verify the accuracy of all this data". You just have to give us two or more sources that satisfy WP:SIRS. The person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me since I have to do that in order to make an AfD. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    By the way, good work on the WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sorry if I don't accept the soundness of your statement that "the [only] person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me." This is especially true now that I pointed out an error, which you have not (yet) corrected. 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Rp2006 ( talk) 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    As the source is not independent, the error does not affect the subsequent assessment of GNG. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 05:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Rp2006: I didn't go back to modify it since it's effectively part of a timestamped comment, and going back to change it now would alter the meaning which would result in any reader not fully understanding what prompted this thread. Usually I only do this if it's really egregious or nobody has responded. But I'll go modify it now since you requested. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the source analysis, because I don't see two WP:GNG/ WP:NORG sources. Levivich 03:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is another error in the source analysis. OneZero is not a blog. It is a journalistic publication owned by Medium. From their website:

    OneZero is a publication from Medium about the impact of technology on people and the future. Our editorial team is also behind Debugger, a publication about gadgets, and Future Human, a science publication about the survival of our species. As a journalistic publication owned by Medium, OneZero maintains editorial independence over the stories it publishes on the Medium platform. Medium’s business interests and investors have no bearing on our work. We avoid conflicts of interest and, where unavoidable, disclose them. OneZero employees do not have any financial stake in the companies they cover and may not act on nonpublic information for personal gain or the gain of friends and family. Though we make every effort to be accurate in our reporting, when we are wrong, we acknowledge and correct our mistakes. We do not accept gifts, and we pay for or return products that we review. All articles published on OneZero, including those by staff, expert contributors, and freelance reporters, are subject to editing and fact-checking for accuracy by OneZero’s editorial staff.

    You could try to make a case that it's not reliable at RSN, but you'd probably lose that battle. I think it's easy to see "medium" in the URL and immediately dismiss something as a blog post. That's not the case here. Medium employs paid journalists and editors for a smattering of professional publications that it hosts on its website. That's one of them. AlexEng( TALK) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    The first relevant thread at the linked RSP entry deals with this issue more or less: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Article by established journalist in Medium publication_with_editorial_staff Not much consensus ensued though. I read the mission statement and didn't really see the proof of reliability above a blog. I can't submit a correction, for instance, and I'm unsure how their editorial process works. Seems like they just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" that can arbitrarily approve/change/deny stories. [10] None of them actually list on their profile that they're an editor for OneZero, most list that they work for Medium and one lists "former lead editor, Forge at Medium" which is confusing since from her profile she hasn't updated in months but still has editorial access? Why haven't they removed her by now if she doesn't work for Medium? It's also kind of unclear how this "editorial independence" exists when most of the editors list their affiliation as being with the parent company; which implies they're not very independent. From my experience serious journalists are very particular about listing their specific affiliation. For instance, journalists will always say they work at " Bloomberg News" and not " Bloomberg". Or the The Athletic versus the NYTimes company. Those who work in the former are very particular that they don't work for the latter, even though the latter is the parent entity. Though this is just anecdotal and isn't much to base an actual assessment on but it's part of why I judged it initially as a blog that Medium threw some money and employees at, rather than a serious journalistic endeavour. Perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment, but that was my somewhat informed belief when I made the SIRS table (probably should've gone into more detail) and it wasn't an inadvertent error on my part. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not much consensus is a weird takeaway from that thread. Jytdog never responded to clarifications regarding the nature of re:form, and he is the only person in that thread complaining. Jytdog is an editor whom I have (had?) great respect for, but he could be a bit dismissive and stubborn when it came to challenges to his decisions. It's not clear to me from that thread that we should be dismissive here of a journalistic publication based solely on the other avenues of business for the parent company of that publication. I also think that your above suspicion that Medium just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" is extremely weird. I'm going to assume in good faith that that was just a gut reaction and not actually what you believe. Medium is not unreliable because the company is somehow biased or shady. Medium is unreliable because anyone can create self-published content on their platform. That is not the case for their owned publications, like OneZero, which are legitimate journalistic organizations. Journalists are more reliable because they are paid by their company, not less. As Rhoark said in the thread you linked:

    Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up "publications" which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if: a) The editors and writers have prior journalism experience, or other relevant expertise; b) The writers are paid; c) The editors are medium.com staff or endorsed by them

    These all seem to be true for OneZero as well, and I agree with that assessment. AlexEng( TALK) 09:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    I didn't really see it to be a legit journalistic organization at the time based on the fact almost all the editors list their affiliation as "Medium" and not the actual journalistic organization (i.e. saying they work for "OneZero"). Same with the lack of way to submit corrections. Haven't seen other news organizations do that in the past as they have a very clear separation between news and the rest of the business as well as an email address to send angry letters to. Plus people will acknowledge that they work for the publication and not the parent entity. Didn't really feel like there was a bunch of effort put into "OneZero" and while the mission statement is nice I didn't really see it being a real journalistic organization; more like a blog run by the Medium company. While it's a very nice blog and Medium maybe isn't a biased/shady company I still think it's a blog; because why else wouldn't any of the editors proclaim that they work at "OneZero" in their Medium bios? It would make sense for them to do that if their full time gig was being an editor rather than just having to manage a blog as an extra job duty. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not entirely sure if you're implying that Medium threw the janitor and the IT guy at a publication and called them "editors". Medium is a website that owns several publications. Medium is also a self-publishing platform. "Publications" is also a feature of Medium which allows editorial control for content. OneZero is a publication in which the editorial board consists of Medium employees employed as the Medium Editorial Group whose job it is to curate content and exercise editorial judgment. I don't think there's a restriction that a particular employee can only be the editor for one publication at a time, though you'll note that one of the editors is the "former lead editor" for Forge, which is another Medium-owned publication. If you want to submit a correction, you contact the editors or the author. That's the nature of how their platform works. If you were hoping for like "onezero@medium.com" or something, I'm not sure if that exists or not. I also think you're playing fast and loose with the term "blog" at this point. At what point are you just describing a journalistic publication without saying the words "journalistic publication"? I'm not particularly suspicious of the editors or of Medium (website)'s motives in editorial decisions for their publications. Do you have some reason to be? AlexEng( TALK) 10:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Comment I have one more comment to add about your analysis of the Chicago Tribune (CT) piece. By the way, the link is broken and the article is not on archive.org, but you can read it here. It does not violate the part of WP:ORGDEPTH that you [mis]quoted, but it still might be trivial coverage. The full statement in the orgdepth example is intended to read: brief or passing mentions, such as in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.[emphasis mine] That's not saying that a source that quotes a member of the organization, even extensively, cannot qualify as a source for the purposes of determining sigcov. It's saying that if the only mention of the organization is as the source of a quotation for the article, then that's not significant coverage. To clarify what I mean, let me give an example. Let's say, hypothetically, that Randy Savage is alive and has quit wrestling, only to start working at Arthur and Son Family Widget Company. Arthur & Son is not notable just because Savage works there, per WP:INHERITORG, and is not otherwise notable by any criteria. Now let's say Arthur & Son fires Savage for allegedly eating their widgets straight off the assembly line. A news publication later runs a story about Savage and his crippling widget-eating addiction that has now landed him in rehab. A quote in the middle of the article, attributed to the president of Arthur & Son, reads, "we just had to let him go. We were losing so many widgets." That is the passing mention that the guideline is talking about in its example. You can't create Arthur and Son Family Widget Company based on a couple of articles using that quotation as sources for notability. The CT column, on the other hand, is not attributing a quote to Underdown in his capacity as a member of CFIIG. The column is clearly about Underdown's investigative work as part of that outfit. However, it may still qualify as trivial coverage. The column is really short, and CFIIG is not mentioned by name; it's only referred to as a "team of investigators". The whole article is not "just an interview" with Underdown, although the author clearly interviewed Underdown as part of their research for the piece. If it were just an interview, it might call into question whether it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which is not something that you noted in your table above. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, but it gives some pretty good advice on how to evaluate a source that includes interview material as primary or secondary. To be secondary, a source should contain transformative thoughts, rather than just parroting what the interviewee said, with the irrelevant (in this case) exception of when the interviewee is speaking as a subject matter expert on their field of study. Anyway, this turned out longer than I expected, but the bottom line is that I'm not particularly convinced in either direction with respect to whether or not this source is appropriate for use in qualifying the subject for WP:GNG and by syllogism WP:NORG. AlexEng( TALK) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Weird, the link works fine for me. Though it was pretty much just an interview with Underdown with little additional information (he didn't seem to contact anyone else) and is just based on quoting the guy as a story source. And to be honest I thought this was a transcribed TV news segment of some kind when I first read it since it had double hyphens instead of dashes (in the link on their website), the writing style, and the fact it's a TV journalist who is attributed as the author. Thought "oh this is one of those segments where the guy does the lead-in, interviews guy for a while, explain what guy said/will say, cuts back to new interview, elaborate, back again, so on so forth until hit the reader with kicker, it's done". It reads a heck of a lot differently with less emphasis on the interview in my head when I'm not imagining it as a TV news segment where the interview is the central part. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The Tribune piece is about debunking, not the organization. The author uses someone from the organization to talk about that. There really isn't anything in-depth about the organization itself that wasn't provided by the organization itself (or the person being interviewed). This wouldn't pass WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are several issues, but addressing notability alone the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Leaning delete. That one does look self-promotional, and it is not supported by strong 3rd party RS. My very best wishes ( talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Center_for_Inquiry_Investigations_Group&oldid=1067119590"