Deletion of Animal Charity Evaluators (2nd nomination)

Comment: I believe this organization meets the  criteria for inclusion. I previously provided a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_Charity_Evaluators#Notability_tag|a list of multiple independent reliable significant sources on the talk page. This at least merits a presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets  with discussion in Givewell 2013, Wrenn 2015 and Garrett 2018. If you want more sources, someone listed a bunch at Talk:Animal Charity Evaluators#Notability tag. There was indeed quite a bit of  which I just deleted. As per -CONTENT, problems like puffery aren't usually deletion reasons: {{tq|If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.}} I wasn't sure about removing their charity recommendations. After all, they are a rating organisation, so it seems potentially relevant to say what their ratings are. What was your reasoning, {{u|DGG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PUFFERY||WP:DEL)