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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom[edit]

Comparison of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom (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)

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Article does not seem to be encyclopedic, but is just a comparison of websites. Bazonka (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 14:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and consider renaming to List of online charity donation services in the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with having detailed lists of items which have some shared characteristics - see Comparison of crowdfunding services, Comparison of video codecs, and countless others. WP:NOTGUIDE does not really apply to list-type articles which, by their nature, cannot delve into minute details of the items they list. Personally, I am perfectly fine with articles titled List of... – although I have reservations with regard to Comparison of... since such titles suggest a substantial degree of WP:OR (comparing things is a creative work; mere listing them is not); hence my rename suggestion. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename if this can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very subjective subject with figures changing constantly. A few months from now, this page will look as some irrelevant amount of figures. And why Britain and not France or USA or Russia? What's so special about the UK? Wikipedia pages are not for publishing most recent stats about this or that local or regional organization. Delete altogether. werldwayd (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you clarify your argument please? Is it WP:UPTODATE or WP:ITSLOCAL? — kashmiri ^TALK 23:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IINFO: Statistical information that is very hard to keep up to date, that is insufficiently sourced, and of limited (local) interest.  Sandstein  11:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Article content is DEFINITELY NOT indiscriminate (IINFO). — kashmiri ^TALK 12:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think there are very practical problems with keeping a page like this: they might easily quickly go out of date. Whilst it at first seems obvious that the page may be of some use to someone looking to donate in the UK, we also have to bear in mind that should any of these services increase or reduce their fees, wikipedia may unwittingly be giving the unwary advice to use one rather than another based on old information. I think that's too much of a risk. In terms of policy, I think this fits somewhere near point 5 of WP:NOTADVERTISING and whilst I see the keep arguments and see the good faith of editors adding to the page, I don't think this is what wikipedia is for. We can't keep content that needs to be regularly updated otherwise it might give a commercial advantage to one product over another IMO. JMWt (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument can be made about any other "Comparison..." type article. Comparison of web browsers for instance. Or Comparison of email servers. Things change constantly. Evolve. As WP:UPTODATE says, what you wrote should not be used as an argument in deletion discussions - because Wikipedia is a work in progress and cannot limit itself to well-maintained articles only. Also, listing several independently notable things along each other has nothing to do with advertising. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that argument, but there is a clear difference in my view between this kind of page and other possible comparison pages; which is that they're listing and comparing the fees and service information between commercial brands. My argument is not really WP:UPTODATE because I'm not talking about the general situation, I appreciate that pages go out of date. I'm talking about this specific situation where we're talking about influencing a commercial relationship the reader of this encylopedia might have with another commercial provider. I don't think we should be a source of information for consumers looking to compare brands for the best price, there are plenty of other web providers that do that much better than we could. JMWt (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't think the other "comparison" pages are really the same thing, as they're discussing the technical details behind the provision of email servers and web browsers respectively. Once we start including the cost comparison of the various services, then we're into totally different territory in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this place, an AfD discussion, is about whether the topic is suitable to remain on Wikipedia; it is not about a single chart. If you consider the fee table inappropriate, why don't you propose removing it on the Talk page, or simply are BOLD and remove it? Requesting deletion of the entire article because of a single chart in it feels somewhat over the top. As for articles that contain price comparisons, it's an interesting topic but unfortunately I don't know the policy (if there is one). Maybe someone could guide? — kashmiri ^TALK 19:34, 1 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.