Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative Project on Terrorism

Investigative Project on Terrorism

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)

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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. There are many sources discussing the IPT. Mina Ivanova says that the IPT is founded by Steven Emerson, and that the non-profit "claims to offer 'the world's most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic groups'". The Ivanova piece is found within the Clarke Rountree-edited book Venomous Speech, published by ABC-CLIO. Deepa Kumar writes that the IPT is one of the top six purveyors of anti-Muslim racism in the US, on pages 188–189 of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, published by Haymarket Books. In Speculative Security: The Politics of Pursuing Terrorist Monies, published by the University of Minnesota Press, political scientist Marieke de Goede writes about IPT in a long paragraph on page 15, and a sizable footnote on page 225, describing it as a key source of information intended to keep terrorist financing in front of the public. In Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance, published by Vanderbilt University, criminologist George Michael says on page 193 that IPT is one of three NGOs that US authorities refer to with regard to the activities of radical Islam. George Michael also writes in the Middle East Quarterly that the IPT has "conducted investigations into many Islamist and terrorist groups and individuals... stirred up more hornets' nests than many government agencies... hone in on targets that broader agencies missed." Scholars Melva Underbakke and Pedro Ruz Gutierrez wrote an article published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: "After 10-Year Investigation, U.S. Government Fails to Convict Dr. Sami Al-Arian". The article describes IPT as an authority on radical Islam, quoting "senior terrorism analyst" Brian Hecht of IPT on the case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian. I think all this coverage by high quality sources establishes notability, and the presence of Brian Hecht in a number of cites, and the absence of Steven Emerson, means that IPT cannot simply be merged to the Steven Emerson biography. The IPT article should stay. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• Delete reasons in my comment below. Atsme☯^Consult 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)

A move discussion is very different from a deletion discussion. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

You delete noncompliant articles that are riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation like this one.Atsme☯^Consult 04:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • • 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)
          • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)