Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation


 * 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   merge to Lady Gaga. Many of the "keep" !votes are weak, and those that actually make a point have not provided sources that 1) are independent; 2) offer significant coverage; and 3) focus on the foundation itself as opposed to just "some project by Lady Gaga." King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Born This Way Foundation
Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Swifty (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete - fails WP:CORP. This article only contains information about one launch event for the said foundation, and not of anything that it has substantially done; WP:CORP states that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Of the article's sources, all are in relation to the activities of Lady Gaga and focus solely on the launch; this fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH as one WP:EVENT with little WP:EFFECT. As there is currently no evidence (from from verifiable, reliable or independent sources) that the organisation will partake in any notable events in the future, this article also breaks WP:CRYSTAL. Merge !votes are irrelevant as the information is already detailed here. SplashScreen (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the level of international press interest, and the recent launch of Born Brave groups demonstrating that this is more than one event or a PR stunt without social impact. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * delete, that is, a redirect to the appropriate subhead in Lady Gaga's entry seems right at this stage, though a little merge work is in order despite what SplashScreen says. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep due to notability, especially in the worldwide media. This article can only grow, everything for it is easily verifiable and it's just so notable worldwide it has to be kept. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have another rationale besides "It's notable (WP:ASSERTN) worldwide (WP:LOCALFAME, WP:FARAWAY and WP:BIG) because the article can grow (WP:CRYSTAL)"? SplashScreen (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean other than it being created by Lady Gaga, consistently voted one of the most powerful women in the world by influence, opened by many notable celebrities and gaining multiple press releases in the worldwide media? I fail to see WP:CRYSTAL standing up to scrutiny there unless that was at my comment? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And notability is not inherited. Not everything Lady Gaga does is notable just because its Lady Gaga that does it. SplashScreen (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't involve just Lady Gaga though, and their work is ongoing and still gaining media attention. I have no doubt this article will keep growing at all, not even 1% doubt Splashscreen. Thanks and have a nice day/evening  J e n o v a  20 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But your doubts, or lack thereof, mean absolutely nothing because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not in the business of keeping pages here in the vein hope that one day, something might just become notable. SplashScreen (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However we do keep articles where there is a realistic expectation of improvement. The original nomination claims that the "article only contains information about one launch event for the said foundation", this is now untrue as today I extended the article with a simple Google News search to show that there have been events in recent months with international interest. The nomination states "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" and yet the international sources I have added are specific, with articles about the foundation rather than incidental coverage in articles about Lady Gaga. If I can address these issues on the same day as this nomination is created, most readers will probably start to think that it is realistic to expect further improvements to sourcing and content in the near future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These "improvements" just aren't good enough. The sentence about the BTWF partnering up with Viacom is sourced by the foundation and Viacom themselves - no coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources. The sentence on the "poster campaign" is, again, solely sourced by the BTWF - no coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources. The three pillars of the foundation are copied and pasted from the BTWF website - no coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources. This article fails WP:CORP and should be deleted. SplashScreen (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I also added information about a poster campaign they did a while back, which i found easily. The calls for this article to be deleted by WP:CRYSTAL were done with no research into how notable the topic is. Even Google results list shitloads that could be used to update the article. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 17:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your edits indicate that the "poster campaign" has not received coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources needed to pass the WP:GNG and WP:CORP - a trivial mention in one article does not count. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. SplashScreen (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you still read the article and claim it's not notable after recent additions? It is deplorable to try and delete an article with the notability card without even looking into what information is available on the subject Splashscreen and to stick to that argument rather than try and update the article. Quoting policies earns no respect either since you're trying to twist what i say. Google hits show lots of information that can be used to update the article. I never once said Google hits alone showed notability and also editing your comments after i have replied to them is an unfair way to argue. It shows you have no intent on listening to an argument and you have motivation to have the article deleted against all opposition, however realistic their argument  J e n o v a  20 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And now we have WP:PLEASEDONT. And I can't recall purposely editing my comments after you have responded to them - could you provide me with a diff link? SplashScreen (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here if you wanted to show your argument has merit you have failed Splashscreen and i have good reason to bring this up with my mentor to see his opinion.  J e n o v a  20 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; that was my reply to User:Fæ, as indicated in the formatting. Now, where did I change my comments to you after you had responded to it? SplashScreen (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect (roughly per Bmclaughlin9). As an aside: save for the largest foundations (I've been thinking about creating an article on the Reiner Foundation) it can be hard to get much in the way of in-depth third party coverage that's more meaningful than the creation announcements we have. At present there's so little to say that I feel the material would benefit from unified coverage. I don't think it's a certainty that there will be a lot more coverage going forward, although it is my guess that there will be. In my view, a separate article will become viable at some point if and when that happens. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Fæ and WP:BEFORE. The nominator really must start looking at the alternatives (which are required to be done) before putting up articles for deletion. Statυs  (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is not a rationale to keep or delete an article. SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It's what needs to be done before someone can even nominate an article for deletion. Therefore, this, and almost all of your nominations are invalid. Statυs  (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you imagine this to be the case, I imagine the correct procedure is to alert some administrators and suggest that this, and all my other AfD nominations, be speedily closed. I guarantee that this will not happen. SplashScreen (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Fæ, Jenova20 and Status. The organization has gained worldwide attention and will continue to gain news coverage in everything it does due to the nature of the organization and Lady Gaga being the founder. The article can and will be improved and it doesn't qualify for deletion given those reasons. There are clear alternatives to deleting, maybe redirecting and merging to Lady Gaga#Born This Way Foundation or allowing the article to be improved which is preferrable. – ツ  Te a m m m  (talk · email) 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This organisation is not inherently notable simple because Lady Gaga is the head honcho. The notion that it "will continue to gain news coverage in everything it does" is pure WP:SPECULATION. Asking for more time to work on the article is pure WP:MERCY. Give me strength... SplashScreen (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguing it will not gain more attention is also speculation and unsourced since there is much to use to improve the article. I would argue against a merge if possible as the Lady Gaga articles is already huge and this article has a fair bit to be addded anyway. Asking for more time to work on the article is also more preferrable than trying to delete it without doing a proper check on notability as you should have done before. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova, you still haven't backed up your earlier allegation that I'd been editing comments after you'd replied to them? SplashScreen (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Superstrong keep. Viacom was announced as the BTW Foundation's lead media partner back in May, and most recently the foundation has announced what its plans are for this summer.. Nora lives (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I see the article now includes this information already. Nora lives (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * keep keep per jenova Pass a Method   talk  05:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I believe that people should give the page a chance. It does have information and not all pages have to have a major amount of information to be creditable. If there is sources and a good deal that make the page a Start-class then it should be left alone and allowed to grow. Swifty *  talk  05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that this user was directed to this page through WP:CANVASS . SplashScreen (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasn't invited to this page, i never once asked him or intended for him to vote, and as Swifty's page shows i asked him to help do up the article. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification Jenova20, this seems fine to me and in accordance with CANVASS which includes "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who ... are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." I don't see anything here for a closing admin to be worried about. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh my... I didn't even notice that. LMFAO! Statυs  (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Jenovo. A lot of work is done on the article and there are enough sources to establish notability.  →TSU tp* 06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned, this is not a competition of who can get WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. SplashScreen (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you even look at what you just linked to? Firstly, the above user didn't list any sources. And secondly, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES shows linking to Google Books searches. Statυs  (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never insinuated that the user themselves had listed sources, but they supporting to keep the article on the facile basis that there are "lots of sources" in existence - the argument is one of the same. And what that page links to in its random examples is irrelevant. You need read beyond the layman's terms and look at the substance of the substance - "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions". SplashScreen (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you clearly didn't read the link you pointed to. It is not "one of the same". He stated the article has been expanded. That is no way in violation of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, which is alternatively known as WP:SOURCESEARCH (showing a search of references). Statυs  (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "there are enough sources" was an argument backed up by the addition of feeble sources into the main article. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions". SplashScreen (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please show me towards the sources in the article that contain only "trivial mentions". Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but every title of the references in the article seem to have the foundation's name in it. Statυs  (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Having or not having something's name in the article's title is not indicative of whether or not it contains trivial mentions. SplashScreen (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SplashScreen, please do not feel obliged to reply to every opinion to keep on this page. If you wish to accuse other editors of canvassing, I suggest you ask for help on a suitable noticeboard, however please carefully read Canvassing which includes the statement "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion" under "Appropriate notification" and I suggest you take even more care in considering Refactoring talk pages before striking the comments of other contributors to this discussion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Fæ. If you have an issue with conversations occurring on AfD pages (which is what AfD is for, funnily enough), I suggest you remove your above comment and read WP:IRONY. SplashScreen (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering my long term work with Wikimedia, you might expect me to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and almost all of the essays that people are fond of quoting shortcuts to. It is quite normal to have the process of the AFD discussed to some extent in the AFD (hence people will make reference to AFD process such as Nominating an article(s) for deletion, as they have above). I agree that your conduct is another matter, so I shall stick to raising it as an issue elsewhere as you are suggesting and I encourage other contributors here to do similar rather than taking this AFD further off topic. As for my comment, it seems valid, so I'm not in a rush to remove it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Lady Gaga. I think this will most likely be suitable for an independent article eventually, but for now the coverage is primarily limited to the launch of the group and little more. Deleting it seems a tad overzealous.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant discussion in reliable secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated before the article can only grow, it has reliable sources and Gaga's article is already big enough there's no need to merge it and make it bigger. Tay  (uhoh)  03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: as noted by nominator this organization does not have significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. Claims by "Keep" voters that "the article can only grow" and "will continue to gain news coverage" are not valid rationales for keeping the article. We need the coverage today . Not tomorrow, not next week. Should more coverage materialize the article can be recreated. But for now: let's delete this and get it off the server. – Lionel (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gaga's page -- I don't see enough independent sourcing at this point. Shouldn't delete it outright, though, because it's quite likely to improve in notability with time. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - Lionel's comment is considerably similar to the reasoning at WP:TOOSOON. We are spilling too many notability guidelines out in this discussion. If its too soon for an article to be considered because of the lack of secondary sources, and the knowledge that reliable coverage can become available in the future, then simply merge it with Lady Gaga until it is necessary to create an article out of it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is fine, there's already adequate information to show that in the article. Secondly a merge to the Lady Gaga article would be coatrackish since we'd lose a lot of the information in the article and then there'd be no point in having merged it. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.