Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund

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 delete. Consensus is that this organization fails WP:GNG. If it is also active under another name, as noted by Fences&Windows at the end, and if it is more notable under that name, then an article could be created under that name. Sandstein 11:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Integrity Fund

[edit]

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

Voter Integrity Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a grouping of various pro-Trump individuals who came together after Joe Biden won the 2020 election and who are trying to substantiate Trump's baseless election fraud claims. The group has no notability aside from being covered in relation to this one event in the last two weeks. The long-term relevance of the group is unclear. The level of stability and organization of the group is also unclear. The "group" may disappear in one week, it may fragment etc. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Trump's claims are not baseless if there actually is fraud. This group includes notable people and is providing some of the evidence everyone has been requesting related to lawsuits the Trump team has/will be filing, including numerous instances of absentee ballots not requested and absentee ballots not recorded after return, plus affidavits from defrauded voters. The group is also reporting numerous absentee ballots requested through illegal post office box and commercial addresses and instances of voting in two states. Braynard says in his report that it's informing the lawsuits that are being filed this week, and the scope of the investigation is something of a landmark, regardless of the lawsuits' success. (See video report and upcoming white paper.) Information on the organization, its operation and its goals is from several highly reliable mainstream sources. Pkeets (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We don't publish Wikipedia articles about things we think may become notable, and the coverage in RS is far insufficient at the current moment. As for the comment that Trump's claims are not baseless if there actually is fraud, my claims that there are little green men piloting a very convincing Trump mech-suit are not baseless if that's actually the case, but we certainly don't write articles about it, even if I promise to provide proof of the claim at some later date. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - at the moment the sourcing is inadequate for this group. PhilKnight (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In nominating articles for deletion, WP:NPOV guidelines should control. The political opinions and assertions of individual users is moot and irrelevant when it comes to determining whether an article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines or not. That said, it seems questionable to me whether this article currently meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:NTEMP. aNubiSIII (T / C) 16:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/Discuss Could be incorporated into the 2020 Election article, doesn't seem to be important enough by itself. Would seem to be an organization looking for evidence of something that hasn't happened. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a non-notable front group for the Trump Campaign, what little information exists on it should probably be moved to List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump along with Stop the Steal. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no sign of actual notability; if there should be significant and sustained media coverage about this, an article can be created in six months or a year or whenever, but at the moment WP:ORGDEPTH is not met, and WP:NOTNEWS would also seem to apply. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge to Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. We don't need an article on all of Trump's lies. Reywas92Talk 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (as a second choice) very selectively merge/redirect to List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump. I don't see the sourcing as significant and in-depth coverage, particularly for an independent article; the various falsehoods and conspiracy theories promoted by Trump and allies can be covered elsewhere. Neutralitytalk 18:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason for this page to be deleted. I have not found any wrong or erroneous information. Why is this page up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenola (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — Stevenola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @Stevenola: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and article subjects must be sufficiently notable for an article to exist. Feel free to peruse the comments above for various concerns editors have with this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so everyone knows, the article has been edited since this discussion began, with content including the summary of findings and links to other articles deleted. Plus, comments above are clearly biased. That really doesn't matter, though, because the findings have already been released. Suppressing them on Wikipedia won't erase them. Pkeets (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pkeets: While I agree that unfortunately some users do sometimes fail to adhere to a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and make inappropriate comments (including here in this AfD), Wikipedia has guidelines that must be followed when it comes to notability. It’s nothing against you or any particular group. AfD consensus, once reached, is usually fairly accurate. While current consensus may be that this article is not ripe for including on Wikipedia now, keep in mind that doesn’t mean circumstances couldn’t dictate otherwise in the future. At this point, though, more seems to be required. aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the sourcing available, appears to fail WP:NORG. I agree with the recentism concerns as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for basically all the mentioned reasons. Cpotisch (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Merge per Fences and windows because I don't think we should ignore it completely, and we should at least provide our readers with sound, factual information. 18:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC) - it is a highly notable organization, despite it creating a stir. It has received a great deal of recognition (6,920,000 Google results) because of its significance to American voters and their overall trust in democracy. The cited sources include the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, ABC and MIT for starters. As a WP:NPP reviewer, I would easily pass this article. Following is an excerpt from a WaPo article about the federal government’s chief information security officer: Camilo Sandoval said in an interview that he has taken a break from his government duties to work for the Voter Integrity Fund, a newly formed Virginia-based group that is analyzing ballot data and cold-calling voters in an attempt to substantiate the president’s outlandish claims about illicit voting. Perhaps those sources weren't cited when PhilKnight, GW and some of the other iVotes were cast, but it is clearly worthy of inclusion. I'm not saying it is well-written, but that's not a reason to delete. Most new articles at AfD don't get this much attention, which speaks somewhat to the organization's perceived importance on one side vs its notoriety on the other. Bottomline, we don't delete articles that lack sources (and this one clearly does not), we simply tag them. WP:Crystal is irrelevant because the organization does exist, it is notable and operational per numerous reliable sources, and the current investigation was simply the catalyst for its creation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that a good number of the sources in this article (including some of those you name: the ABC, New York Times, and MIT sources) are being used to verify separate statements about a lack of evidence for widespread voting fraud, and do not even mention the Voter Integrity Fund.
    As for Google hits, see WP:GHITS. Conspiracy theories about widespread voting fraud have certainly been a hot topic on the internet for the past few weeks (largely on social media and in various other unreliable sources), so it's unsurprising there might be a large number of GHITS. However, the search term is also made up of very common words, and I think perhaps you're getting a lot of false positives. When you search for "voter integrity fund" (quotes included), there are fewer than 5,000 results, and they rapidly diminish in quality after the first three or so results (which are already the main sources in this article). GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, and appreciate your thoughts, but I'm a stickler when it comes to WP:PAG, and the 1st paragraph of WP:V points to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. GNG tells us If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The article meets both V & GNG, hands down. We should not dismiss the fact that every conspiracy begins with a theory, and as difficult as it may be, editors should not take sides. We must consider the fact that while half of America dismisses it a conspiracy theory, the other half does not, and our job as editors is to sit dead center and keep our readers apprised of the facts. Atsme 💬 📧 13:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Atsme, rather than use this understanding (not "new" for you, because you have used it to defend other articles, content, and literally UNreliable sources that were favorable to Trump) of GNG for the then-new Steele dossier article, you tried, using several methods, to delete it (citing RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, and a litany of other PAG), and have opposed/undermined its existence for years. I hope that this is an interpretation you will continue to follow the next time a new article unfavorable to Trump pops up. Hope springs eternal. -- Valjean (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, our job is to reflect the significant views published in reliable sources, not apply false balance to legitimize what have been pretty unanimously described in RS as conspiracy theories. As for GNG, I can see your side of the argument, though we disagree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, WP:NORG controls here, not GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree - see WP:ORGCRITE - it clearly passes. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While it got a burst of coverage, many of the sources discuss the people involved in the organisation as opposed to the organisation itself. It also hasn't been in the news since its burst of coverage two weeks ago. There's plenty of reasons to delete this one. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud or Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results. The organisation may be new, but it has received some coverage in reliable sources. However, the coverage is marginal - some of the sources don't actually mention the group (I removed one) and others are local. The article also excludes critical commentary, which while not a reason to delete when combined with the misuse of references suggest this article was written as advocacy, not with NPOV in mind. Fences&Windows 12:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Org itself fails notability, but some of the material may be usable forcitations in another article on the elections. Zaathras (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close

Discussion

[edit]
  1. the article's creator [1], whose comments here and elsewhere indicate they are WP:NOTHERE, far more interested in using Wikipedia to promote the group's baseless legal filings and propaganda materials than in building an encyclopedia.
  2. A throwaway account created solely for commenting here Special:Contributions/Stevenola
This isn't an "uphill battle" situation, and I thereby move to close promptly. What little valid information exists in the article (certainly not just breathless linkings to the groups' own propaganda youtube channel) can just as easily be replicated to an appropriate article on trump campaign conspiracy theories. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this sub-section is rather unhelpful and possibly pointy, attempted to short-circuit a discussion after only 3 days. There is a reason why these remain open, barring severe circumstances for 7 days, as 1 day after your post User Atsme provided a well-reasoned (even if I personally disagree) argument to keep. Zaathras (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2020 (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/Voter_Integrity_Fund&oldid=1138735803"