Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandaid
The article currently links to an article in the Toronto ''Globe and Mail''. This looks to me like a perfectly good source, but the question is whether this one fairly short article is enough to constitute "substantial coverage". My web searches suggest that the amount of independent coverage in reliable sources is not enough to establish notability, but I am not yet saying "delete" because I think it worth allowing time for sources to be found. Unfortunately most of the reasons above do not relate at all to Wikipedia's otability|notability guidelines, but that does not mean that there aren't sources waiting to be found. I suggest that Ketonf would be well advised to read those guidelines, and also the |reliable sources guideline, to get a better idea what is required for a Wikipedia article. However, briefly, being a "good cause" or a "major player" is not relevant; nor is having famous patrons or being part of a UNESCO project, because notability is not inherited: we need direct evidence that ''Brandaid itself'' has substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The fact that the project is "a lot like" another one which has a Wikipedia article is not relevant, for two reasons: (1) even if the two projects are similar, one may have received more coverage than the other, and (2) it may be that the other one should be deleted too: the existence of an article does not prove that it satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, otherwise there would be no need for "Article for deletion" discussions
— User:JamesBWatson, 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)