Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation

Born This Way Foundation

Born This Way Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)
• 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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 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 Jenova20 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. SplashScreen (talk) 19:10, 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 decker^talk 15:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)