Talk:80,000 Hours

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

140.180.190.177 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) The page now cites several major news organizations that have provided significant coverage of 80,000 Hours. Perhaps we should remove the notability tag now.[reply]

Wikipedia is not a listing of every charity that's been talked about one or twice in the news. I don't see how this is a notable organisation just because a few wiki editors are fans. 129.67.116.90 (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, a declaration of potential conflict of interest: I am a former employee of 80,000 Hours, and I am currently employed by the Centre for Effective Altruism, the organisation that contains 80,000 Hours. However I have not worked for 80,000 Hours for several months, and was not asked to contribute to this talk page. The reason I am engaging in this conversation is because as a former employee of 80,000 Hours I know of several articles about 80,000 Hours that have not been considered when weighing up its notability. Second, I have not engaged in a deletion discussion before, though I have been editing wikipedia for many years, so please let me know if I am not engaging with this discussion in the correct manner.

You have argued that this article is not notable. WP:N states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". Thus I hope that by listing a number of independent sources which have written about 80,000 Hours I will counter your claim. The following sources have written independently either about 80,000 Hours or about earning-to-give, an idea that 80,000 Hours first popularised. All of these sources directly mention 80,000 Hours. Note that I have copied this list from here:

I think this link is broken Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AUD "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Thus I would argue that 80,000 Hours is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that some of this articles discuss William MacAskill in more detail than they do 80,000 Hours, however the article William MacAskill was previously merged with 80,000 Hours. Thus if people think that these articles are evidence of notability for William MacAskill and not 80,000 Hours then perhaps these articles should be un-merged in future? (Note that I am not proposing this, I am simply explaining why these articles are listed above).
I have not removed the notability flag myself due to the potential conflict of interest, however if others find the above argument convincing then I would be in favour of removing the notability flag? Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some of the above media references to the article, however I could not find any obviously unsubstantiated statements in the article that could be referenced to any of the above articles. After reading WP:NOTABILITY I have concluded that this is OK, and the article is still notable. In particular WP:NOTABILITY states "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Also, because the question of notability and deletion seem so inter-related I am assuming that I should be copy-and-pasting my comments in both sections, but please let me know if that is not the case. Thanks, Niel.Bowerman (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by the organisation

I see that user Sir Paul has been editing this article, but works for the charity in question. Wikipedia is not a listing or directory for every charity to advertise themselves. Please refrain from further edits. 129.67.116.90 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do work for 80,000 Hours, as I indicate on my Wikipedia page, but I am a long-term Wikipedia editor with thousands of edits under my name. I remind you that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Moreover, my recent edits simply consisted in correcting typos and a factually incorrect statement (I invite readers to take a look at the history page and check this for themselves). If you think this counts as an "advertisement" of 80,000 Hours, please explain why. In the meantime, I'm reverting to my most recent version. Sir Paul (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that most of my edits to this article were made before I started working for the organization, and reflect my general interest in effective altruism and related topics. I encourage anyone to visit my profile page and check the list of articles I have contributed to. Sir Paul (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

The article has been proposed for deletion based on the comments by 129.67.116.90. Please use this section for discussion. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prod was removed. Section turned into long AfD !votes in the wrong place -- please move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/80,000 Hours if you haven't already

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete I believe the article clearly violates Wikipedia:SPIP, as employees of the organisation are pretty much the sole editors of the article, which they freely admit themselves (see other discussion on this page). JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention the "employees of the organisation" that are "pretty much the sole editors of the article"? As far as I can tell, I am the only person who currently works for 80,000 among those who contributed to the article. And I note that I have been editing Wikipedia for almost a decade; that my interest in effective altruism predates my involvement with that organization; and that most of my edits to this article were made before I started working for them anyway (as a non-paid intern, incidentally). Sir Paul (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, a declaration of potential conflict of interest: I am a former employee of 80,000 Hours, and I am currently employed by the Centre for Effective Altruism, the organisation that contains 80,000 Hours. However I have not worked for 80,000 Hours for several months, and was not asked to contribute to this talk page. The reason I am engaging in this conversation is because as a former employee of 80,000 Hours I know of several articles about 80,000 Hours that have not been considered when weighing up its notability. Second, I have not engaged in a deletion discussion before, though I have been editing wikipedia for many years, so please let me know if I am not engaging with this discussion in the correct manner. I have copied the bulk of this argument from the nomination section above as it appears to be discussing a similar topic.

You have argued that this article clearly violates Wikipedia:SPIP, which states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". Thus I hope that by listing a number of independent sources which have written about 80,000 Hours I will counter your claim. The following sources have written independently either about 80,000 Hours or about earning-to-give, an idea that 80,000 Hours first popularised. All of these sources directly mention 80,000 Hours. Note that I have copied this list from here:

I think this link is broken Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AUD "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Thus I would argue that 80,000 Hours is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of how things proceed from here is that others can contribute to this debate and then an external moderator will decide whether to delete the article based on the consensus of the discussion thus far. If this is incorrect and I need to take further action please could someone let me know here? Thanks, Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some of the above media references to the article, however I could not find any obviously unsubstantiated statements in the article that could be referenced to any of the above articles. After reading WP:NOTABILITY I have concluded that this is OK, and the article is still notable. In particular WP:NOTABILITY states "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Niel.Bowerman (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus I argue the accusation of WP:SPIP on its own is not enough to justify deletion. The article does not read as biased to me, yet I am aware that I have a potential conflict of interest, and thus perhaps the community could rephrase the article in order to reduce the perception of bias if that is the issue at hand? Niel.Bowerman (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides some evidence of notability (including references to the organization by multiple independent mainstream press sources). It does not appear to be written from a biased perspective. My impression is also that the organization is well-known within effective altruism circles. Vipul (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vipul: - as the article wasn't nominated for deletion but rather proposed, you can just remove the proposed deletion template from the top of the article if you disagree (as it appears you do). If he or she who proposed deletion (or anyone else) wishes to at that point, he or she might take it through the more formal deletion process (at which point a different tag would make that clear). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Properly nominated for deletion. Thanks for the head's up. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: I have a conflict of interest because I work for the Centre for Effective Altruism, the umbrella organisation to which 80,000 Hours belong. However I'm a longstanding Wikipedia editor and am confident that this article meets the standard notability criteria. Thomas Ash (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Neil Bowerman's comment above. Please read my earlier comments for a possible conflict of interest. Sir Paul (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to all those posting arguments regarding deletion

The article was proposed for deletion. That proposal was removed. The next step is a formal deletion discussion, which does not happen here. Please move your comments over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/80,000 Hours if you would like to weigh in. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I've given this article a C-class quality rating. Although I think it's definitely better than start-class (decent style, organization, and sourcing), it relies too heavily on primary sources from the 80,000 Hours website. I think the information here could be supplemented with secondary sources like Future Perfect articles. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earning to give

The article seems to talk too much about earning to give. It was popular 10 years ago, but nowadays, it's not really a significant aspect of 80,000 hours. Alenoach (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]