Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/80,000 Hours


 * 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. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

80,000 Hours

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article mostly written by organisation. Most links establishing relevance are to organisation's website. Violates WP:SPIP JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete This article reads and is basically an ad/listing for this organisation. I don't really see how every new organisation needs a specific article about it on Wikipedia. Not very encyclopaedic or noteworthy. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Do Not Delete Eight of thirteen links establishing relevance are not to the organization's website. They are links to major news organizations. This is sufficient to establish credibility. While members of the organization have produced some of the content of this page, its importance has been externally verified, so it should not be deleted. If anything, it should be marked a stub, and its content should be expanded. 140.180.190.177 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — 140.180.190.177 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong keep 80,000 Hours is one of the best known organisations in the effective altruist movement. Article needs expanding (IMO). --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely Keep As above poster says, 80,000 Hours is a leader in effective altruism. Wikipedia rightly has a well-developed entry on the movement, which links to 80,000 Hours and mentions its importance. Therefore, we should maintain the 80,000 Hours entry, as well. -- mhs5392
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: 140.180.190.177 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete Not convinced by the argument that some movement which itself seems to be of questionable notability finds this company notable. It also does, as OP mentions, sound a little dodge that the page seems to be edited primarily by people affiliated with the company. The article doesn't really carry much information or interesting content, and seems written like a bit of an advert or landing page for a site. Not really wikipedia material. 129.67.116.46 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete This organisation sounds like a cult. But more importantly, its purported notability seems mostly hyped up by people employed by it, based on it's talk page. Can we get some quality control here? UtilityFunction9 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC) 
 * ''Don't cults tend to solicit money rather than give it away? I first came across 80,000 Hours on the eyebrow-raising http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15820786: "Banking 'can be an ethical career choice'".)--Davidcpearce (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep First, a declaration of potential conflict of interest: I am a former employee of 80,000 Hours, and I am currently employed by the Centre for Effective Altruism, the organisation that contains 80,000 Hours. However I have not worked for 80,000 Hours for several months, and was not asked to contribute to this talk page.  The reason I am engaging in this conversation is because as a former employee of 80,000 Hours I know of several articles about 80,000 Hours that have not been considered when weighing up its notability.  Second, I have not engaged in a deletion discussion before, though I have been editing wikipedia for many years, so please let me know if I am not engaging with this discussion in the correct manner.  I have copied the bulk of this argument from the 80,000 Hours talk page as it appears to be discussing a similar topic.
 * You have argued that this article clearly violates SPIP, which states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". Thus I hope that by listing a number of independent sources which have written about 80,000 Hours I will counter your claim.  The following sources have written independently either about 80,000 Hours or about earning-to-give, an idea that 80,000 Hours first popularised.  All of these sources directly mention 80,000 Hours.  Note that I have copied this list from here:
 * TED talk: Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
 * BBC online: Banking ‘can be an ethical career choice’
 * BBC Radio 4: Today programme with Ian Hislop
 * Washington Post: Join Wall Street - Save the World
 * Daily Mail: Young professionals joining Wall Street save world
 * CNBC: Wall Street Saves the World!
 * NPR: Want to give back? Get a job on Wall Street
 * Wall Street Journal Careers Blog: On Our Radar
 * Washington Post Online: Join Wall Street. Save The World.
 * Chronicle of Philanthropy: A New Donor Movement Seeks to Put Data Ahead of Passion
 * Daily Mail Online: The young professionals who believe their best chance at trying to save the world is by joining Wall Street and making millions
 * Prospect Magazine: Being Superman
 * Philanthropy UK: Oxford students start philanthropic movement
 * I think this link is broken Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Euromoney: Impact Investing: the big business of small donors
 * Third Sector: Banking can be more ethical than the voluntary sector, says Oxford academic
 * Africa Development and Politics: Who does more for development: bankers or ‘aid workers’?
 * Ethics in Public and Professional Life: Banker vs. Aid Worker
 * High Flying Ladies: Doing good by getting rich
 * Desert News: Are you underemployed? Here’s how you can improve your job prospects
 * National Review: Rise of the Singerians
 * According to WP:AUD "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Thus I would argue that 80,000 Hours is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards.  Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding of how things proceed from here is that others can contribute to this debate and then an external moderator will decide whether to delete the article based on the consensus of the discussion thus far. If this is incorrect and I need to take further action please could someone let me know here?  Thanks, Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to add some of the above media references to the article, however I could not find any obviously unsubstantiated statements in the article that could be referenced to any of the above articles. After reading WP:NOTABILITY I have concluded that this is OK, and the article is still notable.  In particular WP:NOTABILITY states "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article...  if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thus I argue the accusation of WP:SPIP on its own is not enough to justify deletion. The article does not read as biased to me, yet I am aware that I have a potential conflict of interest, and thus perhaps the community could rephrase the article in order to reduce the perception of bias if that is the issue at hand?  Niel.Bowerman (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have a problem with COI editing as much as anyone, but the list of sources above seems pretty difficult to dispute. I haven't looked through all of them but already see 4 or 5 that quite clearly not just mention but cover 80,000 Hours. Passes GNG and CORPDEPTH given this list. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I hope that people with ties to this organization (which, of course, includes its parent organization) would note the general attitudes Wikipedians have on the subject of COI (i.e. frustration, defensiveness, suspicion, hostility -- and all for good reasons, especially as of late) and, assuming this ends with keep/no consensus, respectfully abstain entirely from future edits to this article. Let other uninvolved parties do the work of going through the sources above and what's current in the article to ensure an article is crafted that meets Wikipedia standards. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  14:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * More than happy to do this Rhododendrites. Thank you for your help in directing me to the correct place to post my comments.  I will happily refrain from future wikipedia articles except to flag factual inaccuracies. Niel.Bowerman (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (Disclaimer: I have a conflict of interest because I work for the Centre for Effective Altruism, the umbrella organisation to which 80,000 Hours belong. However I'm a longstanding Wikipedia editor and am confident that this article meets the standard notability criteria.) Thomas Ash (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The references here are adequate and it is not necessary to delete it.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this does appear to be a real organisation for which there seem to be real references and a likely prospect of more cropping up, as time goes by and the organisation operates. We can always revisit this if it becomes stagnant and of less value to the encyclopaedia... but for now it just needs some less-involved people to develop it. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 13:57, 13 February 2014 (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.