Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of nonprofit evaluation

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of nonprofit evaluation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Anything meriting due weight here can be covered at Charity evaluator, which hopefully will be easier to track for SEO/paid editing problems than the "Timeline" format as discussed here. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related mass AfD for timelines of tech companies is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com. VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Lots of content here has not been moved to Charity evaluator; how can you delete it instead of properly merging and redirecting to save the content? Personally, I would say we should merge both articles into a new one at charity evaluation. K.Bog 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough here worth saving to merit a merge. VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Most of it is RS'd and refers to organizations which are notable enough to have their own articles. K.Bog 07:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can tell by the bluelinks that the timeline mentions notable organizations. That's irrelevant. Taking 1 random example: 1987 - "The NonProfit Times, a newspaper covering the nonprofit sector, is launched." Verifiably true, but not relevant enough to merit mention in the parent article and already covered in the article about the publication. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are relevant, which is sufficient for deletion to be unwarranted when there is still unmerged material. If you want to put together a comprehensive article which describes these organizations but want to start from a blank slate where you have no idea where to even start, you're just going to make things harder for no good reason. K.Bog 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is true that there is any content here worth keeping, adding it elsewhere is fine, but currently this timeline conflicts with the title which renders it misleading disinformation. For instance, non-profits have been evaluated since there have been nonprit organisations. This list is mis-titled and represents a list of more recent charity evaulation organisations. And it points/promotes/advocates spammingly in the direction of an organisation which has been heavily advocated here in a false "grassroots" (astroturf) manner, which is distressing for our editors and unfair to users.TeeVeeed (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like all lists/timelines/articles, this page is restricted to notable cases. There may not be reliably sourced cases of nonprofit evaluation from before the 19th century. Charitable organizations in general are a fairly recent topic so I don't expect there to be much content from before this, though I certainly don't think it wouldn't be worth including. K.Bog 19:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all other articles created and primarily written by this user. There is too much promotional content and too little attention to policy. This article is functionally spam. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this indiscriminate, redundant list. If people are so keen to save some of this content for inclusion in another article, the onus is on them to copy the content to their sandbox and get to work on it. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.