Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewing Marion Kauffman 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation[edit]

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

Note to the closing administrator/editor: The nominator has withdrawn the nomination.. Lourdes 15:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I am hereby withdrawing this article from Deletion, as discussed below we have decided to remove the portions that don't meet Wikipedia's instead of blowing it up per WP:TNT. Amin (Talk) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is problematic, and I think we can serve it best, by blowing it up and starting over (WP:TNT).

The problems:

The article relies too much on the primary source of kauffman.org
Some statements have no reference at all
The tone is promotional throughout the article
It contains a lot of data that isn't worthy of being included in an encyclopdia WP:SUMMARY
There are 8 external links within the text, most of them to kauffman.org
Two of the most prominent contributors, @Flip51: and @Juvensophist: have only contributed to the Kauffman Foundation page and the Ewin Kauffman page, and nothing else. Though I don't want to jump to conclusions, I thought it was worth pointing out
The introductory text leaves room for improvement, it just says it's a non-profit from Missouri.

Let me state again, that I do believe there should be a page for the Kauffman foundation on Wikipedia. Though I think the readers are better served by having a shorter page that meets Wikipedia's standards, than a long one that is promotional and not well referenced. Amin (Talk) 10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and snow close this Afd. The foundation qualifies on notability by even the strictest of standards (if you want, I can list out around 25 reliable sources; but I think you already know that). Just a quick query. If you really want to TNT it, why bring it up to Afd? You can start working on the article and cut out all the spam that you may see. I agree with you that the article requires a lot of editing. But Afd is not the way to do what you are proposing. I'll suggest, just go ahead and edit the article than proceed with this Afd. I don't want you to get dissuaded by my keep vote out here. I'll encourage you to rather withdraw this Afd. Ask me for any assistance in editing the article. Thanks. Lourdes 10:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Amin. Lourdes 10:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes: If you really want to TNT it, why bring it up to Afd?
Because I think it's easier and faster to start over.
I'd like to improve this article, though I think it requires me to remove 75% - 90% of the content, that's why I thought WP:TNT made sense here (I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, I must say).
I have just withdrawn the article from Deletion. I simply removed the Afd notice, hope that's sufficient. Anyways, thanks for weighing in. I will work this article soon Amin (Talk) 15:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amin hi. I think I'll also chip in at the article once you start editing it so it becomes better. And by the way, you don't need to remove that notice from the article's page. Let the administrator/editor who closes this Afd do that. You can undo that edit of yours. What you should do is, just write clearly at the top of this Afd that you are withdrawing the nomination. Thanks. Lourdes 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lourdes, I did some editing last night, so feel free to add on it. I'm curious to see those "25 reliable sources" come to life. Did some research and could not find that many. Amin (Talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The next handful of days I'll be tied up in fixing the 25 odd references for my Featured List candidate. Next week am on a performance tour. Will get onto sprucing up the sources for this probably after 10 February. Hang around till then. Thanks. Lourdes 05:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would like to see User:Lourdes 25 reliable sources, because we could add them to the article, but I have found at least one (Helmut K. Anheier; Stefan Toepler (24 November 2009). International Encyclopedia of Civil Society. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 649–. ISBN 978-0-387-93996-4.). Now, the article has major problem with sourcing, possibly POV/COI (in the context of WP:NOBLE), but it passes notability, and I do not think the content is as bad as to merit WP:TNT. The article has been tagged with problems, any editor (including the nominator) can try to rewrite/shorten it, removing promotional material if any is present. No need for a nuke IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.