Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcom 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 redirect to Broadcom Corporation. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Broadcom Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Refs fail WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Refs are interviews, profiles and routine coverage along with passing mentions. Non-notable. Been on the cat:nn list for three years and never been updated.  scope_creep Talk  09:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Broadcom_Corporation (I would say merge, but there doesn't seem to be anything worth merging). The foundation is clearly not independently notable of the corporation. SmartSE (talk) 10:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of things, links from the EETimes and the like. The documentation of Foundation's 1099s show that is independent of the Corporation. Personally, I think it is notable because of the push to promote STEM in the US, Africa, Malaysia.  The more that I understand what is going on in politics, the more I understand that these big foundations are notable and drive everything from new policy (like the California EITC) to how our education system is run. This isn't the largest foundation, but it has $128 million in assets (according to their annual report), so it has a bit of pull. JoeKleim (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Broadcom Corporation. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and there's nothing worth merging that isn't already at the target article, but it's a reasonable search term for what's covered on that article. - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm trying to understand the WP:GNG. I find clear coverage that is independent (EETimes, NY Times, etc).  What is needed to drive the notable past that level?  Also, I tried to add the EE coverage last night as a reference: https://www.eetimes.com/turning-to-africas-youth-to-help-fill-the-skills-gap/
 * But I don't see the edits left tonight? Why did User:Scope creep undo my update? The EE Times article is clearly relevant. I'm new at this, engineer by trade, so I thought I would start out editing on something non controversial, but ??? JoeKleim (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The eetimes reference mentions Paula Golden, president of the Broadcom Foundation once in passing when explaining who they were interviewing. Content from an interviewee is not an independent source of a subject they represent. Outside of the quotes from her, there are a few mentions of the parent Broadcom company, but absolutely nothing about the Foundation, aside from the aforementioned explanation of who Paula Golden is. That's trivial coverage and does not contribute to the notability of the subject. The NYTimes piece is similarly trivial, a quote from Golden and a brief explanation that she works for the Broadcom Foundation, but that's it. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see that.  I personally thought it was an interesting article because of the push to get STEM integrated into countries outside the US. According to a 2015 bureau of labor report there is no shortage of STEM since, many stem degree holders actually work outside of stem (myself included).  If you look at the pew research about stem, it shows that Women continue to be underrepresented in physical sciences, computing, and engineering.  So, it still seems that promoting STEM, especially among women in the US is critical.  I'll look at some other news coverage, but I think that some organization that spends millions of dollars every year promoting STEM for young women is notable, I'll just see what I can find that meets the standard. JoeKleim (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It is the WP:NCORP policy that applies to businesses. WP:GNG used to apply, but in 2008-2012 it was comprehensively abused by 1000's of paid editors in a true avalanche of crap business article, many of 10,000's of which are now deleted. Editor Tony Ballioni and several other editors came together to write WP:NCORP. Study it. The quality of source is important. The fact that it in the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the AP News, or the Telepgraph, or the Japan Times or Le Monde is not particularly important in this context, as all these papers take the advertising dollar, more so in the 2008-2012 when they were getting horsed by social media, less so as many of them have paywalls, but it still matters as valuable digital real-estate, they still take the advertising dollar.   scope_creep Talk  08:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The EETimes reference you put above, fails WP:ORGIND as its a partial interview with the company. Its the quality of the reference that counts, not where its placed. I don't think I undid your edits. Are you sure your on the right Afd?   scope_creep Talk  08:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was intentional but you did with this edit. - Aoidh (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Must have missed that. Half or fully asleep, still working away. Sorry.   scope_creep Talk  15:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. As I explained to Aoidh, I think the Foundation is notable because of level of influence that I see (did you watch the UN SDG media day?) and the impact of the programs that they drive at the national level.  I watched the video of Prisha Shroff, a high-school winner of one of the Broadcom awards, speaking at the UN. She was very intelligent and had a great story, specifically about how climate change (wild-fires) impacted her and how she uses coding, sat imagery, moisture analysis, and work with local fire-fighters to determine potential wild-fire risk zones!  If you give me a little time, I think that I can find more information that is interesting and notable to share. JoeKleim (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pay particular attention to the requirement for "Independent Content" as defined in WP:ORGIND so that the information in the article originates from a source *unaffiliated* with the topic company. So, it could be argued that Prisha, being a beneficiary and winner is not unaffiliated but also that her "great story" has nothing to do with providing *independent* *in-depth* information *about* the company itself. We're not looking for "information that is interesting and notable" here at AfD, we're specifically focussed on evaluating a company's notability and for that we need references that meet NCORP criteria.  HighKing++ 16:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * HighKing, I get what you are sawing. I think the issue that I am struggling with is the same issue that occurs in more general politics. Just because something is notable, does not mean that it gets written up in the Guardian. For example, the $52B Chip's act did not appear out of nowhere. Reading the Wikipedia article makes it look like Tim Ryan came up with it and it got passed with hard work. Yet that story is weak. Over the past 5 election cycles, Intel has contributed ~$1M (open secrets.org) from its PAC pretty equally to both Republicans and Democrats. Qualcomm spent $7 million in 2022 alone. I don't see one article about who came up with the chips act and how they pitched it. This doesn't have anything to do with Broadcom per se, but I see a foundation that was given $50Mill in 2009 and $100M soon after has more pull than just sponsoring science fairs. Clearly, investing a $1 million/year in US science fairs isn't much, but doing the same in India and Africa (which they sponsor as well) is another story.  I could write a story just based on what is in the 1099s. I just need to keep looking if someone wrote the article that I need to post. JoeKleim (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean to say the 990s (sorry, I mistyped). JoeKleim (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Broadcom Corporation, I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 16:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect as noted. The foundation is merely the checkbook for an ordinary corporation to sort out its benevolent expenses. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2022 (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.