Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Charity Evaluators (2nd nomination)

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. Issues with promotional language can be dealt with through the editing process. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Charity Evaluators[edit]

[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)

non notable and promotional for the organization and its work. A list of whivh this private organization considers top rated charities is not encyclopedic content. This is a restored excerpt for an earlier draft deleted as promotional paid editing at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Riceissa/Animal Charity Evaluators. It consides of the ratings, a promotional introduction, though much less of the surrounding fluff. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with discussion in Givewell 2013, Wrenn 2015 and Garrett 2018. If you want more sources, someone listed a bunch at Talk:Animal Charity Evaluators#Notability tag. There was indeed quite a bit of WP:PUFFERY which I just deleted. As per WP:DEL-CONTENT, problems like puffery aren't usually deletion reasons: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I wasn't sure about removing their charity recommendations. After all, they are a rating organisation, so it seems potentially relevant to say what their ratings are. What was your reasoning, DGG? Trimton (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GNG seems well-established based on the convenient list of sources on the talk page. We shouldn't delete based on concerns about puffery or previous versions of the article. For what it's worth, I actually think the article should be expanded. It looks like there's a lot of useful information in those sources and the Evaluators' website. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems a clear Keep, if for nothing else (and there are many good sources) the promotion and support of Peter Singer, worth his weight in endangered-animal fur in the animal rights movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- can I possibly be understanding this right? Your suggestion is to keep this article because it helps promote a famous scientist? DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you have turned my comment on its head, Peter Singer promotes and supports this group. In addition to "and there are many good sources". Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks for explaining Randy Kryn, but I think it still doesn't count. promotion and support of by Peter Singer alone doesn't contribute to notability. Significant coverage by Peter Singer would do so as per GNG, if he was independent of ACE. He isn't, since he's on the board. Or did he cover ACE significantly before he joined their board? That would count, as far as I know. Trimton (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote about the group in his 2015 book The Most Good You Can Do, which I'd take as a good faith acknowledgement of the group's notability. Don't know when he joined the board, but his inclusion, before or after his book, would seem to help ACE more than promoting Singer and it certainly wouldn't be his main priority or intent in going about doing his own work. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singer is on their board since at least October 26, 2014 according to board meeting minutes. His later writings cannot contribute to establishing notability, I think, since he isn't what GNG calls independent. Trimton (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The topic already meets GNC, as outlined in the discussion, and the page already has good sourcing. Singer's involvement, which is not the central point of this AfD, is just icing on the cake. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that 🍰 Trimton (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this organization meets the WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. I previously provided a [list of multiple independent reliable significant sources] on the talk page. This at least merits a presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article.

Separately, you mention that the current page is a restored excerpt of [User:Riceissa/Animal_Charity_Evaluators], which was written by a self-disclosed paid editor six years ago. (They were paid by an overly eager activist, ‘not’ by ACE or anyone affiliated with ACE.) However, it is not true that the current content is an excerpt from there; you can see for yourself by comparing | Riceissa’s October 2015 content to the current version of the page.

In general, articles that merit inclusion by WP:GNG should be improved when they lack significant encyclopedic content, not deleted. There's plenty that ACE does which is encyclopedic, yet is not mentioned in this article at all. Unfortunately, because I have a WP:COI, I limit myself solely to meta and talk page comments like this one, and so I can’t personally help to make the content of the page better. Regardless, the page should certainly not be deleted, due to it meeting all criteria of WP:GNG. — Eric Herboso 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see means of evaluating the effectiveness of Animal Charity Evaluators in light of the broader tent of Effective Altruism, which Peter Singer has touted. MaynardClark (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Added this discussion to the WikiProject Animal rights talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2021 (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.