Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:46, 6 July 2012

Born This Way Foundation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Swifty (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Strong 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. SplashScreen (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still read the article and claim it's not notable after recent additions? It is deplorable to try and delete an article with the notability card without even looking into what information is available on the subject Splashscreen and to stick to that argument rather than try and update the article. Quoting policies earns no respect either since you're trying to twist what i say. Google hits show lots of information that can be used to update the article. I never once said Google hits alone showed notability and also editing your comments after i have replied to them is an unfair way to argue. It shows you have no intent on listening to an argument and you have motivation to have the article deleted against all opposition, however realistic their argument Jenova20 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have WP:PLEASEDONT. And I can't recall purposely editing my comments after you have responded to them - could you provide me with a diff link? SplashScreen (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here if you wanted to show your argument has merit you have failed Splashscreen and i have good reason to bring this up with my mentor to see his opinion. Jenova20 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken; that was my reply to User:Fæ, as indicated in the formatting. Now, where did I change my comments to you after you had responded to it? SplashScreen (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strong keep per Fæ and WP:BEFORE. The nominator really must start looking at the alternatives (which are required to be done) before putting up articles for deletion. Statυs (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is not a rationale to keep or delete an article. SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's what needs to be done before someone can even nominate an article for deletion. Therefore, this, and almost all of your nominations are invalid. Statυs (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you imagine this to be the case, I imagine the correct procedure is to alert some administrators and suggest that this, and all my other AfD nominations, be speedily closed. I guarantee that this will not happen. SplashScreen (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Fæ, Jenova20 and Status. The organization has gained worldwide attention and will continue to gain news coverage in everything it does due to the nature of the organization and Lady Gaga being the founder. The article can and will be improved and it doesn't qualify for deletion given those reasons. There are clear alternatives to deleting, maybe redirecting and merging to Lady Gaga#Born This Way Foundation or allowing the article to be improved which is preferrable. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation is not inherently notable simple because Lady Gaga is the head honcho. The notion that it "will continue to gain news coverage in everything it does" is pure WP:SPECULATION. Asking for more time to work on the article is pure WP:MERCY. Give me strength... SplashScreen (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing it will not gain more attention is also speculation and unsourced since there is much to use to improve the article. I would argue against a merge if possible as the Lady Gaga articles is already huge and this article has a fair bit to be addded anyway. Asking for more time to work on the article is also more preferrable than trying to delete it without doing a proper check on notability as you should have done before. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova, you still haven't backed up your earlier allegation that I'd been editing comments after you'd replied to them? SplashScreen (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superstrong keep. Viacom was announced as the BTW Foundation's lead media partner back in May,[1][2] and most recently the foundation has announced what its plans are for this summer.[3][4]. Nora lives (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops! I see the article now includes this information already. Nora lives (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep keep per jenova Pass a Method talk 05:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I believe that people should give the page a chance. It does have information and not all pages have to have a major amount of information to be creditable. If there is sources and a good deal that make the page a Start-class then it should be left alone and allowed to grow. Swifty*^talk 05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this user was directed to this page through WP:CANVASS [5]. SplashScreen (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jenovo. A lot of work is done on the article and there are enough sources to establish notability. →TSU ^tp* 06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===[[Born This Way Foundation]]===
 {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}
+{{notavote}}<small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Swifty|Swifty]] ([[User talk:Swifty|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Swifty|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
 :{{la|Born This Way Foundation}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Born This Way Foundation|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 5#{{anchorencode:Born This Way Foundation}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Born_This_Way_Foundation Stats]</span>)
 :({{Find sources|Born This Way Foundation}})
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 *'''keep''' keep per jenova [[User:Pass a Method|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 05:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Strong keep''' I believe that people should give the page a chance. It does have information and not all pages have to have a '''major''' amount of information to be creditable. If there is sources and a good deal that make the page a Start-class then it should be left alone and allowed to grow. <font face="Arial" color="Red">'''Swifty'''</font>*<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">[[User talk:Swifty|talk]]</sup></font> 05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
+*<S>'''Strong keep''' I believe that people should give the page a chance. It does have information and not all pages have to have a '''major''' amount of information to be creditable. If there is sources and a good deal that make the page a Start-class then it should be left alone and allowed to grow. <font face="Arial" color="Red">'''Swifty'''</font>*<font face="Arial" color="DarkRed"><sup style="margin-left:0.37ex;">[[User talk:Swifty|talk]]</sup></font> 05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)</s>
+::*Please note that this user was directed to this page through [[WP:CANVASS]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASwifty&diff=500831320&oldid=500772086]. [[User:SplashScreen|SplashScreen]] ([[User talk:SplashScreen|talk]]) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - per Jenovo. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Born_This_Way_Foundation&diff=500852064&oldid=500782710 A lot of work is done on the article] and there are enough sources to establish notability. '''''[[User:TheSpecialUser|<span style="font-family: Arial Black; color:black; background:white">→TSU</span>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:TheSpecialUser|<span style="font-family: Verdana; color:black; background:white">tp*</span>]]</sup>''''' 06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)