Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naked Heart 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Naked Heart Foundation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Redirect to Natalia Vodianova (or delete). I initially redirected the article after expanding the target section, but the article creator recommends more discussion. Per my initial explanation on the talk page: the N.H.F.'s two independent sources are both articles on Vodianova, not the N.H.F.; it seems the organization's notability is just an extension of Vodianova's and a redirect is more appropriate until significant coverage on the N.H.F. itself surfaces.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep: (I am the article's creator) The article although small seems to me fine. It seems completely justifiable to have a separate article on an institution that someone has set up. The article is very well sourced and these clearly identify the Foundation even though they mention its founder. There are many more similar sources in famous publications that can be added and used for a basis for expansion of the article. I am not sure whether to expand the article with mentioning each of the parks that have been established and then looking for Russian references in the Russian press for each, or some other such strategy, is the way to go. This would be trivial were this a US/UK charity but it is not. Some more specific instructions or suggestions or actions to improve the article might be nice. Also it is one of the few Russian charities we have an article on and this article goes some way to reducing the excessively US/UK dominance of English Wikipedia's coverage. I think the current trend on Wikipedia for new small articles with potential to be attacked and attempts made to delete them is less useful than trying to expand our coverage. More and more of our time seems to me is being spent on deletion and defence and less and less on improving our encyclopedia. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC))
 * I have added some things and put in headings as some seem to like that. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Are references like the new one from the Petrozavodsk newsletter or the one from the UK Charity Commission more like what would be needed to keep the article? Should I make some requests for Russian language ones? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello there. The Uk charity commision is great for verifying facts, but it doesnt help much in terms of establishing noteability as most wont count it as a secondary source independent of the subject. Id hope the article is now already safe from deletion considering its a charity, but if you can find one more article where the main focus is on the chairty and not Natalia, that should make it totally safe.  It shouldnt be a problem if the article is in Russian. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Natalia Vodianova per Mbinebri, who appears to be quite correct about his/her analysis of the sources of the article. Besides the sources taken directly from the organization's website (not able to be used as a third-party, reliable source), they're all pieces about Vodianova, and simply mention the Foundation. Any content worth keeping can be merged to Vodianova's article. Glass  Cobra  14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom makes a fair case, but after some research this important charity seems highly notable. A CNN article has recently been added as a source which is specifically about the org, although naturally Natalya is prominently mentioned. Id also suggest when we're dealing with a charity thats helping large numbers of under privileged children it wont do any harm to allow it the benefit of the doubt, even if its felt its close to the borderline.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have to disagree with your analysis of the CNN article. It is very clearly discussing the foundation in terms of Vodianova's involvement.  The article is titled "Russian supermodel's playful ambition" and even begins with her name.  I'll also note that a couple of newly added sources (the html conversion articles, specifically) either don't mention the foundation or only do very briefly.  So while I can respect what the foundation does and anyone's desire to keep the article, the current sourcing still doesn't assert notability outside of Vodianova and I'm kind of getting the impression the article is being "padded" to avoid a redirect ruling based on length rather than proper demonstration of notability.    Mbinebri   talk &larr; 06:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Guardian article makes it notable. The richest model in Russia started a charity, and it got plenty of coverage.   D r e a m Focus  23:58, 16 October 2009 (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.