Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of charitable foundations

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 keep. All entries in the article are all wikilinked and thanks to Northamerica1000 can easily be sourced, As an aside the deletion rationale isn't a reason for deletion and technically I could close this as Speedy Keep per WP:SK1 but that'd be pointy and now rather quite pointless!... Anyway clear keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of charitable foundations

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

This list could get extremely large unless scoped appropriately. Really it's essentially acting as an alphabetical category list. Suggest change to List of Global charitable foundations, or List of International charitable foundations at the very least; even then I'm not sure what benefit a list has over a category. Aeonx (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I don't find the deletion rationale very clear or persuasive. Yes, this could grow to a very large list but I don't believe potential size of list is a reason to delete rather than, say, split if necessary. The suggestions for potential name changes don't require an Afd at all: this sort of thing should be discussed on the talk page or the page just boldly moved to a new title -- though the current list name seems better than the ones suggested by the nominator, as this does not appear to be a list reserved for charitable foundations that work globally or internationally? Finally, WP:CLN does outline how categories, lists, and navigation templates can all co-exist. So, unless I'm missing something -- which is possible, I don't work that much with lists -- I say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:LISTN and also retain per WP:LISTPURP. The topic passes WP:LISTN, having been discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Source examples include, but are not limited to: , , , , , , , , , , . Per WP:LISTPURP this has valid functionality for navigation purposes, as demonstrated by the 6,161 page views it received in January 2016. Compare this to Category:Charitable organizations, which only received 304 page views and Category:Foundations, which received 250 page views in January 2016. Many Wikipedia readers do not use categories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete per NOTDIR. Too broad and vague to serve an encyclopedic purpose; in my experience, these kinds of list pages end up being just magnets for promotional editing. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for the reasons outlined by Northamerica1000. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:58, 6 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.