Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colcom Foundation

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. The arguments to delete the article state that there is not standalone coverage and that the subject's notability is merely inherited from its founder. In the discussion, new sources were provided along with arguments that these sources represented standalone coverage. There was some argument to merge the article's content with the founder's article, but this did not generate much traction. This is borderline between no consensus and keep, but I am closing this as keep given the weight of the additional sources. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Colcom Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has a history of promotion through environmental & civic projects. Significant portions of this article are just slightly re-worded from the Cordelia Scaife May page. Aside from the greenwashing and other projects that were listed prior to my removing of them, there is hardly enough for an article here. It was founded by May, funds anti-immigration causes, and received a large sum of money when May died. The only other piece of information here is that the foundation funded groups designated by hate groups by the SPLC, which could obviously be implied from their anti-immigration stance. This article is unnecessary & inherits at least a portion of it's notability from May, who was also the org's chairperson from its founding until her death in 2005. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References #2 and 5 are extensive profiles of the foundation's founder and what happened when she croaked, which is also the majority of her Wikipedia where a merge+expansion is warranted. Notability in not inherited per nominator. Astapor12 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #6 is the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a city newspaper. Reference #13 is not a blog. Reference #10 is definitely about more than just sponsorships and greenwashing. That source is a 1,400 word story about the organization covering its history and impact (and only 2 paragraphs are about Cordelia May). Finally, I don't see how the profile in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is self-promotion. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a print magazine with actual writers. I don't think a paid promotional piece would mention that May "funded a group that promotes chemical sterilization of women around the world." Nosferattus (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't say The Chronicle of Philanthropy was a paid piece. It is self-promotion and publicity from a magazine that writes about nonprofits and, in this case, the advocacy work done with Cordelia Scaife May's inheritance. The article dovetails with the aforementioned NYT/LAT reporting on how she acquired+what she did with her inherited fortune, and it is not remotely expanded upon on the Wikipedia about her, hence Merge.
Lastly, I tried to make a good faith evaluation of the existing references which you clearly didn't agree with and I don't appreciate the uncivil tone of this response. Astapor12 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry that my response came across as uncivil. I think your evaluation was certainly in good faith, I just didn't agree with it. I apologize. I still don't know what you mean about the Chronicle story being self-promotion. Are you saying that Colcom was somehow responsible for their story? Nosferattus (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please discuss your rationale in more depth than WP:SOURCESEXIST. You made similar trivial comments on Omneky. Astapor12 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the emphasis on controversies, this is becoming WP:COATRACK. And if balancing the text means a return of local charity donates park benches, local charity sponsors [fill in the blank] i.e. routine philanthropy then what are we doing? This is a nondescript philanthropic organization that donates to environmentalism and organizations Wikipedia collectively disagrees with (myself included!). It has not received significant coverage that isn't intrinsically tied to the founder's views, wealth and social status outside of an echo chamber of the same Pittsburgh publications and same reporters positively and negatively reporting about their local charity. Astapor12 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to reflect what is in the published sources. I moved all the controversy coverage to a single paragraph at the bottom. That doesn't seem excessive to me, especially since a large portion of the coverage of the organization is related to controversies. I disagree with your characterization of the organization as "nondescript". According to The New York Times article, the Colcom Foundation has had a significant influence on U.S. immigration policy and on the policies of the Trump administration. This isn't just a run-of-the-mill local charity. It may have been nondescript while Cordelia May was alive, but since her death it has pivoted significantly[5] (and attracted more attention in the process), which is another reason I don't think it would make sense to merge it into Cordelia Scaife May. Nosferattus (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon the foundation's activities necessitates the inclusion of it's environmentalism & civic/greenwashing activities, otherwise this article leans into a WP:ATTACK piece, which wasn't my intention when removing them in the first place. The criticism of the foundation's activities also stems from actions taken while Cordelia May was alive - "funding groups like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies, the American Immigration Control Foundation, Californians for Population Stabilization, the California Center for Immigration Reform, and Numbers USA" (all taken directly from her page). Continuing to fund additional anti-immigration organizations is not surprising given the previous information. I think this article suffers from WP:PROMO when it comes to it's environmentalism, and is entirely redundant when discussing it's negative aspects. My preference is now leaning to merge rather than delete based upon the legitimate keep votes. It could even be summed up simply: "The Colcom Foundation has been continuously criticized for its continuation of May's anti-immigration ideals since her death".
I'm not a fan of what Colcom supports personally, but if I have to take this on an objective level, I don't believe this article adds any value to the project. WP:SOAPBOX dictates that this needs to be a neutral page if it continues to exist, politics aside. 30Four (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you remove the coverage of Colcom's funding of civic activities? If you think the article is now unbalanced, you are free to address that problem by editing the article. None of the arguments you are putting forth are good reasons to delete or merge the article, IMO. And Colcom's focus has changed since May's death. The percentage of grant money going to anti-immigrant groups has risen dramatically (from about 1/3rd per year while May was alive to about 2/3rds per year recently) and Colcom's funding of other organizations has withered. For example, they recently withdrew funding for Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Natural History after decades of support. Nosferattus (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believed the environmentalism & civic projects to be promotional based on their greenwashing nature, as I've already explained earlier in the discussion, and referred to your own edit summary when removing that list: "Removing some minor items from bullet list. Maybe the list should be deleted entirely?" 30Four (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources discussing the foundation in depth include NYTimes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Tribune Washington Bureau. There are also some scholarly sources with a few paragraphs of coverage each: [6], [7]. I guess you could merge, but I don't think that would be best serving our readers, and there's enough here to build a stand-alone article. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more partial to merging the page personally. IMO, the in-depth coverage doesn't differentiate the content enough from it's founder & her intent. Could you provide the text of what the scholarly sources say? The preview doesn't provide enough context for me to consider it all.
    On the side, those two other keep votes with minimal contributions (CresiaBilli, Salamandra-12) seems somewhat strange in the grand scheme of things. This may be the wrong platform to ask for this, but would it be possible to look into them at all? I see a pattern of low effort contributions on AfD votes, although that may not be for me to determine. 30Four (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Cordelia Scaife May's intent was more focused on environmentalism and supporting civic organizations, two areas that the Colcom Foundation has largely abandoned in recent years. This aspect is covered in more detail at [8]. Since we are now questioning the credentials of the participants here, I wanted to ask if any of your editing activity on Wikipedia is being paid for by clients or compensated in some fashion? Your editing history is largely focused on start-up companies and the biographies of minor professionals, a pattern that often indicates paid editing. If that is not the case, I apologize for the inquiry. I just wanted to make sure everything is on the up-and-up here. Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A majority of my business-related edits can be broken down into pretty simple categories: artificial intelligence and the evolution of technology (which I was particularly invested in with Hayden Davis and the $Libra cryptocurrency scandal), mental health, geopolitics and governmental influence (specific to espionage, war, and policy influence - which includes Colcom, believe it or not), and music. Please continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS about me while there is a sockpuppet investigation about one of the accounts in question. 30Four (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colcom_Foundation&oldid=1296361908"