Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faunalytics

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 keep. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Faunalytics

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Faunalytics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable per WP:Notability (organizations and companies) — no significant coverage, no independent sources, no multiple sources, no reliable sources no secondary sources.

• When I first looked at this article I found 19 of 29 citations pointed to the subject's own website (faunalytics.org), 1 to GuideStar.org (which is mostly self-published information), 9 to animalcharityevaluators.org (which is an animal rights advocacy website purporting to be similar to GuideStar, and certainly not independent of this subject), and not a single citation to an outside independent source.
• A web search brought up only mentions within the same advocacy field (vested interest), mostly brief and trivial mentions, and nothing independent. (See WP:ORGDEPTH.)
• The article contains 18 further external links to the subject's website in violation of WP:External links.
• The two primary editors of the article have been a single-purpose account and an employee of the subject.

Just doesn't pass the notability test for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Platonk (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The article is obviously promotional, but it can be fixed if independent sources are implemented throughout the article. I've looked up the subject and it appears in independent sources, but it needs to be determined if any of them really fit into the article to prevent its deletion. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• The nominator's points are mostly good criticisms of the article, but not WP:DELREASONs. Deletion is no substitute for cleanup. Keep since WP:GNG is established by significant coverage, including (1) Nonprofit Chronicles, (2) Vox, (3) World Animal Net, (4) Animal Charity Evaluators ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Per NCORP, "Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: corporate annual or financial reports, ... interviews by executives...". The four sources you link to are (1) an interview with two Faunalytics corporate execs, (2) an article with some quotes from an interview with a Faunalytics exec, mentions Faunalytics but doesn't cover the topic of the company Faunalytics, (3) another interview with a Faunalytics exec, (4) iffy source because the 'reviewer website' deals only to rate/rank animal rights organizations and all the links in their source report fail with 404 error (many of the links are purported to be copies of the corporate financial reports). Note also that the wiki article for Animal Charity Evaluators also had two AfDs, one of which was adjudicated as Delete for lack of notability, so it's pretty iffy to consider using ACE as a citation contributing towards notability. So you have not yet presented a single source which contributes to corporate notability (NCORP) which requires that the organization "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Beware that all those other animal rights articles on the web which "mention" Faunalytics are not sufficiently independent and are engaging in circular reasoning and/or using the logical fallacy of argument from authority. Platonk (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok interesting, I did not know about the rules for interviews. Strange how it says "interviews by executives", not "with". In any case, the sources 1 and 4 provide secondary WP:SIGCOV. 1 is part interview, part secondary analysis.

Note that WP:GNG does not require secondary sources to be notable themselves. I don't follow how any ref would engage in fallacies or be dependent when they describe what Faunalytics does. Nonprofit Chronicles is not even specialised in animal advocacy, and if it was, so what? There is no rule against SIGCOV coming from the same industry, as long as they are independent of the subject, which they are. 4 is the HTML version of an in-depth review of Faunalytics. It comes out as 12 pages of text if you print it. I don't see why a few dead links from that page are a problem.

The book (5) Cherry 2016 also spends two paragraphs on Faunalytics and its impact ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Weak keep Trimton shows two sources that are niche (hard to avoid in this topic) but in-depth. Since this is an organization that specializes in finding and collating data for others to work with, their impact lies mostly in how much their material is used and cited, and that's quite substantial, as searches readily show. Note also that many older mentions are under the previous name "Humane Research Council". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak keep or userfy. Its bad, but I've seen much worse. It's ore WP:SOAP than WP:SPAM, but it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article suffers from a WP:REFBOMB and imitation of a notable subject. Sources mentioned in this AfD are passing mentions and non-independent sources. Also, quotes and opinions by employees and executives of any company, do not constitute significant coverage per CORPDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • but 1, 4, and 5 are neither of these things? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

REFBOMB. References consist of passing mentions and non-independent sources. And the four sources linked above consist of an interview with two Faunalytics executives, (b) an article with some quotes from an interview with a Faunalytics executive and mentions Faunalytics but doesn't cover the company, which is the topic (c) an interview with a Faunalytics executive. Interviews such as these would be a primary source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References 1,4, and 5 are on the Faunalytics website. These are not acceptable sources for indicating notability. These are not secondary sources nor are they independent of each other. But more importantly, they are not independent of the company. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Steve Quinn: I think Trimton was referring to 1, 4 & 5 of the links Trimton provided in this AfD. As to those: (1) is an interview with company executives; (4) is based on a Faunalytics-provided Q&A written-response interview and financial reports [1] and an interview with the founder [2]; and (5) is only a passing mention and doesn't cover the subject of the company (as best I can tell with no full preview of the pages). Platonk (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Platonk Thanks for explaining. Yes, I was referring to the sources I listed, not to the article. The refs in article do not prove notability, I think. I haven't worked my sources 1-5 into it.

You seem to be arguing that we need tertiary sources, not secondary ones, for notability. Not so. WP:GNG requires secondary sources as defined by WP:SECONDARY (linked at GNG): A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. 1, 4 and 5 are all secondary on that definition, since all have evaluation and synthesis and are one step removed from Faunalytics (two in the case of (5)).

4 and 5 are somewhat tertiary since they cite independent secondary sources.

I anticipate you might argue that 1, 4 or 5 are unreliable, next. Just note that not citing sources, like (1), does not imply unreliability. All the claims made in the secondary part of (1), they can have easily verified with their own eyes (e.g. what kind or reports Faunalytics has published). (4), the Animal Charity Evaluators review, verified some info such as financial data with sources independent of Faunalytics, they write, but again, that is not necessary for being secondary or reliable. They are reliable and secondary. They provide literally 12 pages of evaluation. (5), the book about animal activism by Elizabeth Cherry from 2016, mentions Faunalytics only in the sections I quoted above, but, in my view, constitutes significant coverage. Cherry is two steps removed from Faunalytics since the author discusses (the impact of) Faunalytics based on interviews with people working at other charities. I don't have the book either, I got the quotes from the Google Books preview. Published by a reliable publisher (Routledge).‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 18:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Trimton There is no argument for needing tertiary sources by Platonk or anyone else. I think that is a misunderstanding on your part. Also, Platonk and I have noted that as soon as a source engages in interview and/or quotations - these are not usually considered secondary or independent sources because the relevant material comes from an employee or executive of the company.

Additionally, routine information such as financials, financing, number of employees, etc. does not indicate notability. This is emphasized in WP:ORG, and more specifically emphasized in WP:ORGDEPTH. I would appreciate it if you would read ORGDEPTH, because you seem to be ignoring it.

Platonk brought up ORGDEPTH right away in reference to the links you added to thIS AfD. And I agree with their assessment. For example, the Non-Profit Chronicles source, your number one, titles the article "Faunalytics..."

However, the opening paragraphs generally discuss American meat consumption and health warnings. Then the company Faunalytics is very briefly described and is not in-depth or significant coverage. In that source, this is followed by interviews of company executives, Che Green and Caryn Ginsberg, which takes up most of the page.

And the topics discussed by the executives are about different types of advocacy - not the company. Even if they did discuss the company in more detail, that would be considered a primary source because they are connected to the company (See ORGDEPTH). Moreover, it appears this source generally engages in advocacy for non-profits. So I question its reliability anyway. For example, it is not the New York Times or the Washington Post.

It seems we all agree that your next two sources are not acceptable for the reasons stated above. Your fourth source, Animal Charity Evaluators appears to me to be unacceptable. This is because all their critiques, evaluations, and conclusions are based on information supplied by Faunalytics. To see what I mean, here is the research page posted by Animal Charity Evaluators. Also, Platonk posted a couple of documents that support this view [3], [4].

Finally, I have to agree that your book source, your number 5, indicates only passing mentions, and yes, this is only a book preview. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Steve Quinn I didn't engage with WP:ORGDEPTH because it isn't required for notability. To cite WP:N, A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

• It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
• It is not excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

So to delete, you have to show that Faunalytics fails both GNG and ORGDEPTH, or meets something in What Wikipedia is Not. have you done that?

---->what this debate comes down to, it seems, is that you say 1 and 5 arent substantial coverage, which would fail both GNG and ORGDEPTH. I disagree.

If I am correct on that, then Faunalytics passes GNG (not sure about orgdepth, but as i showed, that's not necessary). You haven't refuted my point that 1,4,5 are WP:SECONDARY since they do synthesis and evaluation. I agree that Platonk did not demand tertiary sources. Platonk just seemed to suggest that sources can't contribute to notability if they rely on primary sources, when Platonk said "(4) is based on a Faunalytics-provided Q&A written-response interview and financial reports". But I don't know why Platonk took issue with (4) using interviews as sources, since they didn't say what exactly is wrong with that. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 08:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice you are trying to emphasize that sources 1 and 4 are secondary, and I have shown they are not. I don't need to repeat myself. I provided an in-depth analysis of those sources above. Additionally, ORGDEPTH is notability criteria and is required for notability. As you noted SNGs are valid notability criteria.

WP:ORG (also WP:CORP) is an SNG which is "...the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right." If a source fails ORGDEPTH it fails notability. WP:ORG and ORGDEPTH exist specifically because GNG can be sidestepped when dealing with organizations.

Also, your first source fails GNG as well as ORGCRITE and SIRS. The interview with company executives make that a primary source that is not independent of the company. It was already stated above "Per NCORP, " Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: corporate annual or financial reports, ... interviews by executives."

The first part of that source discusses subjects that are general and not specifically Faunalytics. Although the title of the article is Faunalytics, it is not significantly about Faunalytics. I already explained this above.

The fourth source, I have explained, is based on information provided by Faunalytics. This again makes that document not independent of the company. That is a GNG issue as well as ORGCRITE, SIRS and ORGDEPTH issue. The fifth source, when I say it is not significant coverage means that it also fails GNG.

And once again, if a topic fails WP:ORG, ORDEPTH, ORGCRITE or SIRS then it fails notability. This is because people play the "reliable source" game or the "secondary" game. Additionally, above I already stated sources "...are not...considered secondary or independent sources because the relevant material comes from an employee or executive of the company." This discounts GNG as well as ORG.

The only secondary source I am seeing is the book. To claim the other sources are secondary is misleading. To claim the first source is significant coverage is misleading. Regarding the book, I have deemed this is passing mention and Platonk has said the same thing.

Significant coverage is a GNG issue as well as a ORGCRITE, SIRS, and ORGDEPTH issue. Being a secondary source, or even a "reliable source", is not the only criteria that determines notability. And if you want to argue the book (source #5) is significant coverage that is still not enough for notability. Multiple independent secondary sources are required for notability. But I do not agree the book is significant coverage ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems the point I have been making has not been understood from the outset. GNG states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So here, in the GNG criteria is the necessity of being independent of the subject.

Material garnered only from the company (as the only source), or interviews with executives or employees, demonstrate the lack of independence of the source. Even GNG says, " Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it..."

Since it seems there is a need to be specific here - the company or executives or employees providing the only material about the topic (the company) are works produced by those who are affiliated with the company.

It could also be said senior executives are essentially the company and information in the form of interviews, quotes, and data - are works produced by the company. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

To further support this angle: per WP:ORGIND, "Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." I repeat for emphasis, clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Platonk (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep In addition to the sources brought above, this is an in-depth discussion of research by Faunalytics and the 2021 book "Vegetarian and Vegan Diets: Your Questions Answered" by Alice Richer at a respectable publisher refers to Faunalytics and its research throughout. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Your first offering fails RS because it is an opinion piece and doesn't rate being a citation in an article let alone contributing towards notability. Your second offering fails CORPDEPTH because the author only cites findings in Faunalytics-authored reports to support whatever she is writing about in her book, but doesn't cover the topic of Faunalytics itself as a company in any depth — merely introducing it as a "nonprofit market research organization" and "dedicated to helping animals". Platonk (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  And there is much more, for example Culture and Activism: Animal Rights in France and the United States, Elizabeth Cherry, 2016 at Taylor & Francis. This book discusses Faunalytics at even more length. This nomination is so weak that it is best withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per discussion and then a Keep per gidonb. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as this article is notable, but it definitely needs cleanup.Jackattack1597 (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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.