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. The two "keep" opinions are by a person with a COI and by a new account with 22 edits.  Sandstein  12:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Charity Evaluators[edit]

Animal Charity Evaluators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is actually pretty good overall, but after doing some research, the article topic (Animal Charity Evaluators) seems unlikely to meet Wikipedia notability standards. The sources cited are almost all primary, and two of the secondary sources are from personal blogs (Nonprofit Chronicles and The Ultimate Fundraiser) and therefore not reliable. The remaining secondary source is by Peter Singer, and after some digging I found several other such articles (and mentions in books) by Singer, but Singer is on the ACE board of directors (cite) and therefore not independent. I was able to find a mention in a secondary source here, but this is only a bare mention, and there doesn't seem to be anything else in Google Books, Google News, or the Google newspaper archive. Spectra239 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Discussed at some length in this book. Since this is a pseudoscience group, this is also a good source per WP:PARITY. If not enough sources are found I strongly suggest that, per WP:PRESERVE, the correct choice would be to Merge to effective altruism. This organization has a great deal of currency in the US animal rights movement, and Wikipedia can perform a valuable service by debunking its claims. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah there. Merging might be a reasonable choice, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "perform a valuable service by debunking claims". Wikipedia can record the debunking of claims, but only if these claims have already been debunked elsewhere by a consensus of reliable sources, which seems pretty unlikely to be the case here. See WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Spectra239 (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's identified as promoting pseudoscience in the two sources I linked. It's standard practice to include such commentaries, per WP:FRINGE. And the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, hopefully with accurate information. I understand where you're coming from, though, because I myself have gotten caught in the crossfire of the soapboxing anti-fringe folks. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't what the sources say, though. The first says that "ACE is highly interconnected with professionalized advocacy organizations, which seems to influence perceptions of efficacy.", which is essentially a conflict-of-interest claim. The second says that "the conclusions drawn are of questionable validity because the data used in the determination of effectiveness are nonexistent or faulty". In academic terms, claims that "Institute X is biased because it's friends with group Y" or "Institute X has reached questionable conclusions based on faulty data" (which scientists say about each other all the time) are very different from "Institute X is a fringe pseudoscience organization" (which you'd only expect to apply to eg. Flat Earther groups). In any case, it's fine to include claims of CoI or faulty data as claims ("person X says Y"), but the article itself can't say "Y", because the sources are clearly biased and of questionable reliability. Spectra239 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, granted. But note that the second source actually uses the terms "pseudoscience" albeit not specifically about them, and "garbage in, garbage out" specifically about them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I'm not familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, but I'd like to share some of my domain knowledge for your consideration. (1) There are numerous secondary sources discussing ACE's work. In addition to the ones you mention, the book (published by Penguin) "Doing Good Better", the book (published by John Wiley & Sons) "How to Be Great at Doing Good", Poker Update, 80,000 Hours, The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Dodo, Our Hen House, Raising for Effective Giving, and Charity Science. I am not sure where the notability cutoff for organizations like this, but just want you to be aware. (2) Corey Lee Wrenn, the person who wrote about ACE in that reference, is known as a contentious figure in the animal protection movement and for criticizing all groups that don't advocate an explicitly vegan strategy. Vegan Publishers, the second reference, is known for similar tactics. Also, I don't think ACE is connected with advocacy groups any more than is necessary to evaluate them properly, since that requires knowledge of their finances, strategy, accomplishments, mistakes, etc. It seems to make more sense to judge ACE based on the content of their work and use of evidence rather than opinions from sources we haven't established as reputable when discussing whether they practice "psuedoscience." (3) ACE acknowledges that they have limited evidence available in making their recommendations, e.g. "The field of animal advocacy has historically suffered from a lack of research attention. As a result, in our research ACE continually encounters questions not addressed directly by existing studies. While we conduct some studies ourselves to strengthen the evidentiary basis of our evaluations, we have limited research capacity and experience." It's unclear to me why working on difficult questions with limited evidence makes an organization "psuedoscience" or what other concerns could point in that direction. I mean, ACE even has a research library devoted to collecting academic research relevant to effective advocacy. --Not a Wikipedia user, just a concerned citizen. (Note: I am involved with ACE and/or the organizations it recommends, so please feel free to consider me biased. Just want to provide information.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4100:6AE0:FD92:10:29F0:3520 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The IP's comments have convinced me that the two sources in my initial comment (now struck) are WP:BIASED, and all of the sources mentioned by the IP are primary, closely connected to the subject, or non-RS. (The only possible exception is William MacAskill, author of the first book and the guardian piece which is just a passing mention; the second book is by Nick Cooney who is closely connected to two groups which are heavily promoted by ACE.) This means we have no hope of an article, even a stub, that satisfies NPOV. ACE currently has a brief one-line mention in Effective altruism#Other organizations, which is probably all we can do with the sources available. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was nominated for AfD under the idea that secondary sources are lacking, but later commenters then pointed out several relevant secondary sources. (Sammy1339 listed hostile sources, which means they are certainly secondary, and an unsigned commenter subsequently listed ten additional positive sources, nine of which are secondary.) Per WP:ORG, this article meets notability guidelines. — Eric Herboso 02:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) [Note: I have worked with Animal Charity Evaluators in the past. — Eric Herboso 01:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)][reply]

• Let's go through those.

1. William MacAskill, very marginal popular book. He's affiliated with several effective altruism groups and is an associate of Peter Singer, who is on the ACE board. Somewhat unclear; this might be okay.

2. Nick Cooney, founder of one and current employee of the other of the two main groups that ACE promotes year after year. Also heavily promotional of ACE.

3. A passing mention in Poker Update.

4. Written by the "Secretary of the board of Animal Charity Evaluators".

5. MacAskill again, very brief passing mention.

6. Interview with someone from one of the groups promoted by ACE, passing mention only. Solely mentioned via the question: "Animal Charity Evaluators has rated MFA one of its top recommended charities for the second year in a row, and MFA has received many additional awards for its effectiveness. What makes MFA such a high-impact charity?" And not even mentioned in the answer to that question.

7. Advertizement.

8. Online-only talk-show interview with " the Executive Director of Animal Charity Evaluators".

9. I can't even tell what this is, but it's not an RS.

10. Charity Science - looks like another fringe "effective altruist" organization to me.

So no, there are hardly any secondary sources except the scathingly critical ones from my initial post. Better to leave this one out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reasons I don't find (most of) these convincing:

1. I think a second-degree connection through a board members is a pretty weak affiliation, but you seem to agree.

2. I don't think "promotional of ACE" is a concern in itself; it just means he likes ACE. The employment/founding concern makes sense, although given how small the farmed animal advocacy community is, it's hard to find leaders in the community who aren't affiliated in some way with a given organization. Still, I agree this is the most non-independent.

3. Passing, but an independent, secondary source nonetheless.

4. Similarly to 2, the effective altruism community is also small and well-connected. Agree it's not very independent in absolute terms, but given the nature of the community, it's understandable.

5. The entire article is about ACE in a way, or at least, effective animal charities. See 1 for why I don't find the affiliation concerning.

6. Passing, and probably weaker than others due to the affiliation.

7. Why do you think it's an advertisement? Because it's so positive in tone? Everything on The Dodo is this positive. I'm not convinced.

8. Why is an online-only talk-show somehow not reliable or independent? And interviews with affiliated people seem fine as long as the source is secondary.

9. Raising for Effective Giving is a legitimate organization that supports ACE. Not sure what your issue is with this one.

10. I don't think being an effective altruist organization makes you non-reputable, but feel free to point me to something. Empamazing (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Agree with Eric Herboso. Even if a couple of those sources are authored by people with connections to the organization (and I think we should be sympathetic because charity evaluators are by their nature well-connected), there are still plenty of entirely independent reliable sources listed above.— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 3:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC).

• Delete. It looks like they do good work and they're in a laudable cause, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. I'm not persuaded by the quality of the sources, and to be honest the review above seems to be grasping at straws. When you have to construct an elaborate argument as to why something might be notable, then it probably isn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The Salon and Guardian articles in addition to the two books cited by the IP are enough to make me lean towards keeping it. πr² (t • c) 05:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Salon article is by someone on the board of directors and the Guardian article is just a very brief passing mention, and is by someone whose connection to the subject is questionable, who is also the author of the first book. The second book cited by the IP is by Nick Cooney, whose close connection to ACE is indisputable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, Cooney's connection to ACE is not my OR; the nature of it is made explicit in the book I cited in my struck comment above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. I guess the Guardian article and Cooney might not count as indepdendent sources. I found other mentions of this nonprofit online, but not really in-depth (e.g. a brief mention in Vox - not sure if this is another author connected to the organization). It looks like it might not meet the notability criteria currently. πr² (t • c) 06:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, Dylan Matthews is a writer at Vox and fan of the effective altruism movement (although he's been critical at times). I feel that's about as independent as you can get for an organization like this, although the mention is brief (but it's not "a trivial mention," which seems to make it acceptable by WP:NOTABILITY). Empamazing (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I'm curious if anyone has precedent to cite for another article on an organization in a similar situation (a well-connected group (e.g. evaluates other orgs), lots of mentions, but mostly either not in well-known publications or not authors entirely independent from the group) and what consensus was reached on it. If someone had such evidence, and the group was decided as non-notable, that'd convince me I was setting my notability standards too low. Empamazing (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)— Empamazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and draft and userfy if needed at best because this article would actually be acceptable but it can drafted and userfied for further work. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coming on it fresh, I would have deleted it as G11 for blatant and unfixable advocacy. It could possibly be improved to be less of an advertisement for them by the removal of the entire sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, and the drastic rewriting of 1 ,2, and 7 for NPOV, but that's pretty much equivalent of having a new article together. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Citing G11 as though this article would fall under speedy deletion seems a bit harsh, but I might be biased since I have a loose connection to ACE irl. Would anyone not affiliated with ACE be willing to make DGG's suggested changes in the hopes of saving this article? — Eric Herboso 00:29, 14 February 2016 (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.