- GiveWell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This articles was speedy deleted (following G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The article was speedied by JzG (User talk:JzG) despite the fact that the article is quite high profile and extensively linked by other articles on WP, for the reason that substantial CoI editing occured on the article and some language of the article reads as puffery. JzG does not dispute that there should be an article on the topic, but I think he believes that we would be better off starting from scratch. Other commenters on his talk page think that it would be best to work with the problematic version of the article because much of the content is worth salvaging. I think WP is better off with the flawed version of the article than none at all, especially if we have a notice that the article is slanted. We should at least have a discussion about undeletion and that sooner rather than later. See the Google cached version of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that I think the CSD was wrong, because the article is not purely promotional, in fact it is not mostly puffery. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So handy to have the google cached version! That article had become a bloated, terrible mess (really a webhost for the organization) and TNT was needed. If it were restored and moved to draft space I would be willing to revise it back to something like a WP article and move it to mainspace again. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely correct to delete the page — this type of page is exactly why G11 exists. That does not mean that the page cannot be recreated from other sources and with other content. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The G11 criterion says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional" This does not hold for this article — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to delete for puffery, wouldn't someone need to assert that all earlier versions of an article have this feature? That would be hard to believe, so doesn't it make much more sense to simply revert to a prior, non-puff version? (This is an honest question; I don't know the wikipedia law. I just was really surprised to find that the article had been deleted.) Otherwise, people could kill good articles they don't like by adding puffery to them, a la false-flag operations. This is all true even if someone thinks the article should be re-written from scratch. Re-writing the article is a lot easier if you can at least see the page history. Jess (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G11 did not apply because the page was not exclusively promotional. G11 also states "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." Note also that WP:TNT is neither a policy nor guideline. The actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per Andrew Davidson. The article could certainly use work to make it more neutral, but it's not exclusively promotional. The topic is notable, and the article is far from unsalvageable; there's no need for TNT. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Restore the article. While it contained promotional content, the article also contained a well-referenced section on Givewell’s use of Astroturfing, thus the article certainly contains some non-promotional content and references. In such a case, G11 should not apply. The subject is notable. WP:STUBIFYing it down to a brief overview would not have been difficult. The article should be restored, then stubified and or taken to afd.Dialectric (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no doubt that the entire tone and tenor of the article is promotional and well deserves to stay deleted. However, that is not the sole reason why I calling for this version of the article to be excised permanently. It is no secret that Givewell have been astroturfing for a decade and this is only the latest evidence that their blatant astroturfing continues. Although the page history is not visible to me, if I examine linked articles like Against Malaria Foundation and Schistosomiasis Control Initiative I notice a continuous pattern of systematic harassment of the dissenter formerly of their altruism group User:Lrieber who was reverted by group member User:Riceissa over diff with the edit summary please discuss on the talk page before removing large parts of the page. Despite attempting to discuss on the article talk page diff there was no discussion by 'Issarice' or 'Vipul' and their secretive paid / conflicted edits continued unabated. Something identical happened on Against Malaria Foundation. It is thereby clear that single volunteer unpaid editors with concerns about altruism linked promotional content (including myself) are generally getting pushed off by organised paid advocacy groups / 'cultists' to produce such blatantly NPOV and promotional paid articles. The content of the article is not the only criteria for retention if such strong-arm methods were used to achieve that content. Inlinetext (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Givewell had a single astroturfing incident a decade ago on a web forum; it has not "been astroturfing for a decade". It doesn't make any sense to say that only "paid advocacy groups" or "cultists" would protect extensive content on pages relevant to their interest or would miss talk page notices (make sure to tag editors so that they get a notification). Please assume good faith. K.Bog 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the article itself, nearly all the refs are to the goodwell site itself. We need independent sourcing. We do not need paid editors creating article while not disclosing on the articles talk page the fact that they were paid. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Characterizing the refs as ' nearly all... to the goodwell site'[sic] is misleading when there are more than 10 independent refs including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CBS, and books published by Oxford University Press and Random House. The excess links to givewell sources can be removed without losing what is clearly significant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I count 80 refs to GiveWell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A point of order wrt to the votes of Inlinetext and Doc James: Delete is not an appropriate vote for DRV. If you feel that the article should remain deleted, but that it is not a G11 CSD, then the appropriate vote would be List — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore I'd be perfectly willing to revise the article to be concise and neutral as soon as it is restored. It would not take much work. I'm worried that working in draft space would allow it to either languish in obscurity or lose too much from a non-collaborative edit process. (And before anyone asks, no, I'm not a "paid advocate" or something of the sort.) K.Bog 18:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to provide any prior version to any editor in good standing who wants to try to write a non-spam version, but this was blatant advertorial and we should really not be bending over backwards to accommodate spammers. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with JzG's original determination and Jytdog's analysis here. The cached version looks like a brochure for the org with ridiculous sections like "funding gaps for top charities (along with comparison with actual money moved)". Could this be more promotional? "the article is quite high profile and extensively linked by other articles" are reasons to be especially strict with it, not less so. - Bri (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Doc James. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe the G11 reasoning was in error. Although some portions of the article did read as promotional, there was nonetheless a significant amount of NPOV content. Yes, it could do with some editing, but deleting the article is a step too far. A larger point to consider here is what I think the reasoning was for the deletion: JzG noticed (1) that the article had a number of edits from Vipul's group, which is currently under review at WP:ANI, and (2) that the article read as promotional in some sections. While this does warrant a closer look at the article, I don't believe it warrants an AfD nomination, let alone a speedy deletion. We have a clear list of all of Vipul's editors' usernames; it would be relatively easy to go into the article and remove unhelpful edits that came from his group. (For the record, I've donated to GiveWell in the past, which may constitute a COI, so I'm marking this as a comment only, even though I believe the appropriate action is to overturn.) — Eric Herboso 23:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Doc James, but for a limited time allow to restore to a draft with the SEO refs removed. If in, say, a few weeks we don't get independent, non-promotional refs, then delete the draft, too. El_C 00:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AfD. CSDs are only appropriate if every single revision of the article fits the definition of the criteria (otherwise anyone could load up a stub with spam and get it deleted by stealth). I picked a random diff of the (now deleted) article from 2011 after a couple of experienced editors had been working on it. The first reasonable source I picked on was "New York Times : Founder of a Nonprofit Is Punished by Its Board for Engaging in an Internet Ruse" A well-respected source giving a negative account of an organisation is more or less the polar opposite of "blatant advertising". Additionally I notice the last revision of the article before deletion did not have a
{{db-spam}} tag - in general, it is always better to tag and get another admin to delete to avoid any inadvertent self-bias (except for G3 / G10 / G12 where immediate deletion is paramount). If you want to get rid of this article, do it the proper way and send it off for a full deletion debate, which will settle the matter once and for all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here I have compiled nineteen third party sources of reputable media coverage of Givewell which were not in the original article.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] K.Bog 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The least-effort solution to construct an NPOV article about the topic might be to just start over with what is found in that list of sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and immediately stubbify. Based on the descriptions of the article above it is not an unambiguous case, so G11 should not apply. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I've restored the article so that non-admins can examine the content and decide directly whether the G11 was valid. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Additional Comment, per a request on my talk page I've also restored the article talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- 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 a 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. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn If anyone believes that the GiveWell entry should be deleted rather than improved or flagged, nomination followed by discussion by the wider community of Wikipedia editors is preferable (IMO) to the entry simply vanishing.--Davidcpearce (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The tone of the article was overly favorable and it was overly dependent on non-independent sourcing. But the article was also clearly salvageable, and should not have been subject to speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I used to work at another internet community that was rampantly spammed and astroturfed by GiveWell employees many years back and I think the deletion of this article has merit. I do also agree with the proposal above that stubbifying and allowing people who feel some article should exist is a decent compromise. Jessamyn (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Speedy deletion seems clearly inappropriate. Restore the article, let editors improve it, and if there is still disatisfaction with the results nominate for deletion. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, stubify report potential problem editors to ANI I share the concerns raised by Inlinetext, that being said the group is still notable and deleting the article doesn't directly address the problems with other editors that should be surfaced and investigated. - Scarpy (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse The criterion for speedy deletion via G11 is whether or not the page can be improved by normal editing. If there;s just the matter of removing a little advertising, thats one thing,but if it take extensive rewriting, then it should be deleted. There is no acceptable earlier version. The versions before Vipul's editing are almost entirely negative, and the subsequent versions more in the nature of promotionalism. Neither form a suitable basis for an article. This is one of the clear cases where it is necessary to start over. The principal question is whether the deletion should gave been by G11or AfD, and personally I might have chosen afd, but JzF was not wrong to use G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, very happy to adopt DGG's rationale. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. WP:TNT. The deleted article massively over-relied on non-independent sourcing. If someone wants to start again, let them understand that sources from goodwell, and sources including the word "blog", are unacceptable to use to build content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close this DRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We usually try to give it seven clear days.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This boils down to how narrowly you interpret G11. There are two value judgments needed: "Exclusively" promotional, and "fundamentally" rewritten. I'm prepared to accept that in Guy's opinion it really was exclusively promotional and easier to start from scratch. I raise an eyebrow to see that Guy didn't choose to restore for a full discussion on polite request, and I would have preferred it if he had done that.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - A substantial article, which existed over eight years, that was not exclusively promotional as is required for WP:CSD#G11. WP:TNT is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Reverting to a past version may be due (e.g. this version definitely can't be called exclusively promotional). No prejudice against sending the article to articles for deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn 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." The deleting admin states, "I couldn't tell easily how far back the problem went." So delete to avoid work of analysis? This was an out of process deletion.The talk page of the article is the forum to continue this discussion, especially the reasons for the two templates on the article which were added without talk page explanation. I checked the edit history of the creator of the article, and I see nothing that indicates a COI. Deletion discussions are for worthless articles that don't belong on Wikipedia, not for articles for which clean up is requested. Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- restore and stubify It does need to start over, but there are lots of useful sources and text in the history. Deleting it isn't the best way forward. Or if it is, it needs to go through AfD. There is enough there that's useful that it's a clear speedy case. Might also ban COI editors from the page. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I proposed moving the current page to Draft and creating a new stub. That might be more practical, since it allows the draft to be refactored. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- restore and send to afd - it's pretty bad and should probably be stubbified at least (maybe even TNTed) but it's hard to say that something is "obvious" when it's clearly controversial, even among experienced editors. It looks like there may be consensus to delete at afd. If so that'll have the added effect of carrying more weight if it's recreated. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The point of DRV is not to discuss the merits of the article but whether the deletion was correct. There is sufficient evidence here that this article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so the deletion cannot stand. Especially since it's clear from this discussion that stub-ifying was possible and should have been done per WP:ATD. Whether the article should exist at all is a matter for discussion at AfD, not here. Regards SoWhy 10:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think less than 10% of the deleted article is of any value for rewriting. 90% will waylay a rewriter. I think that meets the wording of G11. Even the references, 90% are not to be reused. I recommend stripping the few useful references, excludes all givewell and blogs, and applying WP:TNT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the wording and the intent of the policy - as well as WP:ATD - are clear: If there is salvageable material, speedy deletion is not the correct way to go. Whether to apply WP:TNT (an essay) is a question for a deletion discussion, not DRV and not speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and stubify. It looks like there was enough non-spammy material to make a decently sized stub, so it should be overturned and turned into a stub (or sent to AFD). Keeping the page history allows other editors to potentially rescue useful content and/or sources.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
