Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas A&M 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 Texas A & M University. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&amp;M Foundation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article fails WP:CORP and WP:N. The subject is a foundation that raises money for Texas A&M University, but very little information exists about this topic in independent reliable sources. What sources are cited in the article are either to very local newspapers or to the university or the foundation itself. The foundation just isn't notable separately from the university, and it needs no more than a very brief mention in the university article (which is already there). Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: The primary author of this article self-identified as being an employee of the foundation. I gave guidance on his/her talk page as to what should be included in such an article, and when no further improvements have been forthcoming after months (and I couldn't find any better sources), I decided to nominate for deletion. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Texas A & M University using nom's line of reasoning for it not existing as a separate article. Drawn Some (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any information worth merging. The Foundation had already been mentioned in the university article before this was created.Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * keep This will recur as an issue, because all public universities nocw have some such parallel organization--which is gradually becoming responsible for a very substantial amount of the total funding. assuch they are a very major factor in the functioning of the university. Sources are a problem, but reliable primary sources on the operation of such foundations are always available. DGG (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't a subject need secondary sources to meet the notability requirements? —Emufarmers(T/C) 02:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are referring to the General Notability Guideline, which is just a default guideline, called a guideline because  it's just a guide, not a limit. One expects there to be many exceptions. The only actual policy requirement is WP:V  & the foundations IRA tax report is a reliable source, because it's audited.  DGG (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with the university article. The foundation doesn't have the coverage to establish independent notability for a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect. The activities of the organization are tightly linked to the university. Until such time as (a) the content required for reasonable coverage exceeds the amount that can be comfortably held in the main article; or (b) the foundation becomes independently notable (for this sort of organization, this happens mainly by negative events&mdash;compensation disputes with fund managers, huge losses / lawsuits&mdash;but is not unheard of), it should not have its own article. Bongo  matic  22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, with redirect. Will be better for readers to have the information in the uni article, rather than in a stub that is unlikely to grow. Can be spun out from the university if sources appear that make it large enough to be warranted.YobMod 08:48, 7 May 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.