Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK charity salaries of CEOs


 * 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 delete. czar 05:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

UK charity salaries of CEOs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Compliments to the creator for his/her research and table-formatting efforts, but this is the beginnings of investigative journalism, not a wikipedia article. No context or lead, just a table of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. PROD (by another editor) was previously removed. Martinp (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. A collection of WP:OR which presents data without context. Also of dubious statistical merit (listing one charity CEO's 2012 salary with that of the CEO of a different charity in 2017 doesn't tell us very much) and the inclusion criteria are not stated (there are over 185,000 charities in the UK so on what basis have the 21 in the article been selected?). Neiltonks (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you nuts ? This is the only modern collaborative resource of it's kind. It is an update on: https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html This table took hours of research. The purpose was to discourage people have little money themselves, from giving money, without realising that they would probably need it to maintain their own health moreso. I think it would be very unwise to delete this. There are many articles around Wikipedia which are simply tables. I started with 21 major charities, under the impression people would add more over time. If you are worried about original research, the last column can be cut. Tetriminos (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tetriminos, I have a great deal of respect for the hours of research and editing this took. But I'm afraid your reply amplifies my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collaborative research space to jointly Develop Good Stuff, even update and expand data published elsewhere. There are plenty of such collaborative spaces around (though since this is not my field I don't know what would be a good fit for this, and of course such spaces tend to be less publicly top of mind than WP). Some of them, in some fields, are even wikis and use wikipedia markup language so your time spent formatting this would not be lost. I do regret that I'm upsetting your apple cart, and I'm pretty sure it's good apples. Just this is not what Wikipedia is for. Martinp (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm well it seems there's plenty of tables of statistics on Wikipedia, so I don't see how it's a bad fit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_filmography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donalds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_football_champions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Emmerdale_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_EastEnders_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coronation_Street_characters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Jersey ^ And the above list could go on and on and on..... Are the above articles really more precious, valuable, and important than propagating the knowledge that the boundary between charity and business is smaller than some realise, in a capitalistic society ? As I said before, poorer members of society should be particularly aware of this, and nothing makes things more clear than raw numbers. Or maybe we should just be reading about [British TV soap opera] Emmerdale characters.......... ?  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I don't see how it's a bad fit - Please read WP:LIST, and you will probably have a better understanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * delete Arbitrary chaotic randomly selected collection of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR, per nom and article creator. The difference between this and other lists/tables is that this one involves original research and synthesis, rather than simply being a list of the named items. A "list of charities in the UK" would be a valid comparison point, although an unwieldy one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per BigHaz. Original research and WP:SYNTH. Ajf773 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 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.