Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charities that apply 100% of financial contributions towards end-recipients


 * 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 100% delete. Punkmorten 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Charities that apply 100% of financial contributions towards end-recipients
Not quite sure what this is supposed to be, but if it is what I understand it as...it's supposed to be a list of charities that donate 100% and don't take anything out for themselves. Not exactly sure if this is encyclopedic. Metros232 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete I haven't read all the comments, but first of all there should not be a list with only one item, and an offbeat one at that; the COI issue is serious; and even if we could find another ten or hundred charities which meet this criterion, the article still inherently does not belong. The article tries to make it a public service or something...forget it. 129.98.212.59 20:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Considering the list has all of one charity, I would almost think this is a spam vehicle for that charity. In any case, it would probably be difficult to provide verification of anything that would be listed here.   Montco 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I guess this is a list (of sorts) that could much better be served with a category... if there were more than one entry. As is, this is unverified, redundant information. --Daniel Olsen 03:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possible WP:COI vio, as this article is Hippypink's only edit ever to Wikipedia. --Aaron 03:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently exists only to promote the claims of the list's only element, a claim that has itself been called into question. Robertissimo 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unmaintainable, unverifiable, unnecessary. Resolute 06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Its also a claim of dubious valueJasper23 08:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete seems like advertising in its present form. If kept, should be a category or "List of" but maintaining such a list would be hard to verify, and of dubious encyclopedic value └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 09:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, in this form the article is useless. J I P  | Talk 11:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Mike | Talk 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable, unverifiable, unrealistic (i.e. only volunteers ok, but following the 100% reasoning, serving coffee to those volunteers, or printing fund raising materials would already disqualify the organisation). Arnoutf 14:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A list that seems impossible to populate with a ridiculously unsearchable title. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  15:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't even make sense. The example used, Smile Train, says in the article that the charity board of directors pays for admin. So some percentage of financial contributions to Smile Train does go to admin. Bwithh 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 00:08, 23 October 2006 (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.