Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiveWell


 * 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)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

GiveWell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted via WP:G11, then brought to deletion review, where the outcome was to bring to AfD. I am acting in a purely administrative role, and offer no opinion on the outcome. I've left it in with the tempundeleted template; it's easy enough to go look in the history to see earlier versions. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT, or restart completely on the understanding that the current version is at least 90% inappropriate as promotion based on non-independent sources. To begin with, everything based on a "givewell" source, or on a source including the word "blog" has to go.  There are, however, some good sources.  Content should be built using the good, independent sources only, with only special limited reference to the company's website.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:TNT is not now and never has been policy. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."  The topic is clearly notable as it is easy to find substantial source such as Ethics in an Age of Savage Inequalities or Effective Altruism: Where Charity and Rationality Meet.  The page has existed since 2008 without all this current drama which seems contrary to WP:POINT.  Per WP:ATD, we should address any issues with ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * TNT is not a rule, or policy. It is instead good advice.  GiveWell is a notable topic, but since the first version, it has been so terribly written that a fresh start is the best idea.  Cut all of the text, choose the good sources, and start again without reference to the current prose.  Usually poorly written drafts improve, that used to be true, but this is an example of overtly promotional prose that only got worse.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Stubbify. I do not care if it is deleted and re-created, or if it is reduced to three objective sentences and regrown from there while retaining the history. The key takeaways are that there is too much crap on the page to try to selectively cull promotion and retain a substantial amount of content, but that there definitely should be an article at GiveWell. VQuakr (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Proposal: We move the current article to draftspace and restore the version there, create a stub for GiveWell in the mainspace and then those of us to believe that the draft version can be repaired work on it there. If and once the repair work is done to a degree that there is sufficient consensus that the draft is better than the stub, we move it back. In the meantime we have a note at the top of the stub saying that there is a draft version of the article that is being worked upon. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the article. I also merged Open Philanthropy Project here, as it almost completely duplicated this article. What was independently sourced there, I brought over here.  I recommend that the nominator withdraw the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection from me; thanks for the cleanup! VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since it was a procedural nomination following the DRV outcome, RoySmith can't withdraw the nomination. I do think this warrants a speedy keep though. Thanks for the effort! Regards  So Why  09:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any basis for that claim that the nominator is not responsible for withdrawing. It is just more evidence that nominations like this should never have been allowed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Jytdog's unproblematic version of the article &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Andrew D. makes a persuasive case, and after Jytdog's hard work rewriting, there is no good reason to delete this. Edwardx (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Jytdog's excellent rewrite with multiple independent sources. the wub "?!"  00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to vote keep due to Jytdog's excellent rewrite, but I have a COI as a strong supporter of GiveWell. While I may only comment here, I'd nevertheless encourage others to really look at Jytdog's rewrite closely -- I truly feel that it resolves the issues the older versions of the article had. &mdash; Eric Herboso 00:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to 'keep' since the original rationale to delete has evaporated with jytdog's rewrite. Thanks jytdog. Cheers, Pat.Patbol (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable topic. This is a fascinating article. Five years ago, the astro turfing incident at MetaFilter resulted a brigade of Mefites on Wikipedia which left the article almost entirely negative and unusable. Then brigand paid editor Vipul got involved and took the article in the opposite direction becoming overly promotional. Then TNT'd and rebooted. Where to next for GiveWell? -- Green  C  15:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete previous versions and keep the rewrite, if it's the case that none of the earlier material has been used. Except for problems with attribution, this is what I would think best when the contaminating text is bad enough that it shouldn't even be in the history. And I   think that TNT is indeed good advice, and ought to apply when the article was directly paid for in the usual sense of parasitic editing rings, in order that the editor editing in defiance of the TOU not get paid for the work--they usually offer a promise that the money will be refunded if the article does not remain at least for a short time--and it set an  example  that paying for an article is not going to get one. If the organization is notable, the new text can be added later.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll disagree with this. We often have bad text in our articles.  Then we fix it and we don't.  Unless there is a legal issue here, "delete old versions" is almost always a bad idea.  And in this case, it does look like parts were used from the old versions, so, it would create legal issues to do this.  Hobit (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * keep per WP:HEY. Nice work. Hobit (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural close If there is no one willing to do the work of preparing a deletion nomination, there is no need for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As per my statement at the DRV, "WP:Criteria for speedy deletion states, 'Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." with a wiki-link to WP:Snowball clause.  WP:Snowball clause states, 'The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start.'  The next sentence in WP:CSD states, 'Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.' "


 * Note that the nominator is using this nomination to advance his viewpoint that WP:CSD is much broader than those deletions supported by the WP:Snowball clause. His closing states, "I could make a reasonable case for calling this No Consensus and letting the WP:CSD stand."  Rather than requiring snowball support for WP:CSD deletions, the closing has ruled that this WP:CSD was not "uncontroversial".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The close is promoting the viewpoint that if an aggressive admin uses WP:CSD, the standard for remedy is that "no consensus to overturn" protects the deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Delete until such time as there is prominent and easily noticeable 'on article' disclosure of past contributions to it by paid editors. User:Jytdog's version is still problematic, for instance every time a PDF of the article is generated the authorship of declared paid editor(s) is included in the footnotes. Their contributions are still recorded and forked off (as they have now actually done on their own websites) and are still linkable to on wikipedia. Alternatively, per 'DGG', there should be careful oversight/suppression of all paid/conflicted contributions to exclude all their past content. This is a proforma objection since there are hundreds of similar articles, including several medical and taxation articles extensively edited by this paid team which needs a positive disassociation by the community. The WP:DP under which this AfD is being conducted is also flawed, being limited to content related deletion, and because there is apparently no policy for deleting articles which evolve in breach of WMF's ToU and guidance. Inlinetext (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable, and the neutrality issues seem to have been addressed. As a side note, I agree with Hobit that we shouldn't delete the old revisions, both for attribution reasons and as general good practice. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable, well-referenced. --Davidcpearce (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The GNG is met, and the spammy links added by paid contributors have been removed. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a notable topic. --Temp87 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and kudos to Jytdog for the rewrite. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:31, 22 March 2017 (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.