Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandaid


 * 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. A borderline case, but there seem to be possibilities for improvement. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Brandaid

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This was tagged for speedy deletion as an A7, twice. The author says there is notability here, so I'm taking to AFD for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even if this doesn't qualify for CSD A7, it is apparent that there isn't any notability here, and worse yet it looks as if this was authored for the purpose of self-promotion.  :(   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not 100% sure about that. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 *  Don't Delete. Hi guys, thanks for reconsidering. I do think there is notability. There are a number of reasons why there should be a Wikipedia page about it. The best one, I think, is that the Brandaid Project is part of UNESCO's global alliance for cultural diversity. But it's also got a number of notable patrons (a few famous actors, two of whom were nominated for Academy Awards). It's a partner of UNESCO, CARE, the Saatchi Gallery---all of those guys have pretty big wikipedia entries. PLus, the project is a major player in the whole movement to redistribute the world's income, to even up the income/market divide. The project is a lot like the ACUMEN FUND, which also has a decent-sized Wikipedia entry. So, I think we need a page for the Brandaid project. If the page is getting deleted because of technicalities, or because I need to write more about the project, let me know so that I can fix the problem. In response to JBsupreme, it's not written for self-promotion, and can you please explain why you think it is "apparent" there is no notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketonf (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 February 2010

hahaha, if it helps at all, I was just searching for brandaid on wikipedia, so yeh...save the artcile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.154.111 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 10 February 2010


 * Made Changes. I agree that it read a bit like an ad, which is probably because my sources were their website and a few newspaper articles that wrote about the project. I think the changes I've made make it read like an encyclopaedia entry. If everyone agrees, can we get the page running normally. Or do we still think some things need changing. Thanks for the help everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketonf (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The article currently links to an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail. This looks to me like a perfectly good source, but the question is whether this one fairly short article is enough to constitute "substantial coverage". My web searches suggest that the amount of independent coverage in reliable sources is not enough to establish notability, but I am not yet saying "delete" because I think it worth allowing time for sources to be found. Unfortunately most of the reasons above do not relate at all to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but that does not mean that there aren't sources waiting to be found. I suggest that Ketonf would be well advised to read those guidelines, and also the reliable sources guideline, to get a better idea what is required for a Wikipedia article. However, briefly, being a "good cause" or a "major player" is not relevant; nor is having famous patrons or being part of a UNESCO project, because notability is not inherited: we need direct evidence that Brandaid itself has substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The fact that the project is "a lot like" another one which has a Wikipedia article is not relevant, for two reasons: (1) even if the two projects are similar, one may have received more coverage than the other, and (2) it may be that the other one should be deleted too: the existence of an article does not prove that it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, otherwise there would be no need for "Article for deletion" discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentI would like to see more third party RS, and some inline citations. It also reads like promotion so needs a bit of re-writing. But there may be something here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with everything said above. I just had another quick look for more sources to establish the organisation's notability. I've picked sources that have wikipedia pages. A lot of Brandaid's coverage in newspapers seems to come from journalists covering their art exhibitions (Brandaid sells art from the developing world). Here's an article in Italian about an exhibit they held in Milan: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009/maggio/28/Dalle_discariche_arte_Haiti_co_7_090528071.shtml (I include it because it's from the CORRIERE DELLA SERA, which is the biggest newspaper in the Northern Italy). There's also the CNN article that I've posted a link to on the Wikipedia page. Another article from THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER http://www.ocregister.com/articles/help-232575-d%C3%A9cor-handcrafted.html. One another is from Good Magazine http://www.good.is/post/brandaid-project-dedicates-all-proceeds-to-haitian-relief-efforts. Again, I include all these sources because each has it's own Wikipedia page.

I think this establishes notability. I can find more articles if need be.

If the entry reads like an advertisement, which I do not think it does, then as the author I'm probably not the best person to fix it. That is, unless someone would like to point out what needs changing, and then I can do it.

Thanks everyone.
 * Delete Certainly La Corriere Della Sera is asignificant source, but there is just one small problem: the article linked above does not mention Brandaid, even though it is about the same general topic area. The item from the Orange County Register does mention Brandaid, but the whole item is only three brief sentences. The post from the GOOD Blog is longer (about 9 sentences) and is entirely about Brandaid. However, I am afraid GOOD is not a reliable source: anyone can join and post; I know this because I have joined myself. When I wrote my post above I was unsure about notability, and tried to describe what was needed to establish notability, in the hope that it would be done, as I indicated in that post. However, what has been produced since in the way of sources is, unfortunately, even less suitable for establishing notability than what was there before, so I have come to the conclusion that it has to be a "delete". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete a few celebrities signed on for the cause and they got some one sentence PR from that, but there is no real coverage of the organization. Ridernyc (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * More Sources A Canadian newswire provider: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2009/10/c2178.html. Photos of people who attended there launch, which was sponsored by Vanity Fair and Dior: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/YwrHRkU4fWe/DVF+Vanity+Fair+Preview+BRANDAID+Project+Mask/20jwkLo7Xsh (I include it only to show that this isn't something small and unremarkable, but something that people know about)


 * Keep I've looked for more sources. I'm not finding much, so I can agree that the article is toeing the line with notability, but I'm still convinced we should keep it considering the sources we do have. Ridernyc does not seem to have to have looked at the Globe and Mail article, which was much more than one sentence. Nor does he--or anyone else for that matter--seem to have looked at the CNN article written by Diane Lane (sure, it's a primary source, but it's still in CNN--does that count?). The article in the Corriere does not mention Brandaid directly, but it does mention an exhibit of Haitian art that they held in Milan. I agree with JamesBWatson's criticism of the Good article (I didn't know anyone could post), but I checked the author of the post, and it's the Associate Editor of the magazine. That makes the post more reliable, no? There are some other one-liners around the internet, but I understand that we can't use those to establish notability (I don't understand why one- two-liners don't count, to be frank). So, yes, I understand that if this article gets to stick around, it does so only barely. I still think that what I've found is enough for it to merit it's own little stub, though. Anyway, I've done all I can do, so if you all still think it deserves to get erased, I'll support the decision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.154.162 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Just barely meets notability guidelines, article really needs to be expanded and these references included in an cohesive way though RadioFan (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (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.