Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borgen Project
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Borgen Project
This is self-promotion of a non-notable think tank/nonprofit. 1) It gets zero hits on LexisNexis, indicating basically no media coverage. 2) Basically all of the Google hits for it are on forums or various listing services where one could be listed for free or for a small charge; I didn't see any indication of other organizations referencing its work. 3) Various IP users have been inserting links to the organization's website into a wide variety of articles; [1], [2], etc. So there's a lot of self-promoting going on here. CDC (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agreed; self-promotion of a non-notable organization. —Cleared as filed.20:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per above. Dcarrano 20:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn royblumy 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 09:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I got 7,600 Google hits for "borgen project", this is far more notable than many other things here. The hits are from a variety of sources not just listing services. Mainstream media attention is not a good barometer for notability. Within the area of NGO's the Borgen Project seems to be fairly well known. Nrets 17:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one more thing, I agree with the links relating to this group being removed from various articles since they clearly are not major players in the Bush administration policy toward, say, the Sudanese civil war. However, I do think that a lot less notable groups are allowed to maintain an entry, for example see: Ninjas in Pyjamas. I do not see why a group of people who play video games are more notable than an actual organization that seems to advocate responsible government and good causes, no matter how self-promoting they are. I really have no stake whether Bogen Project stays or goes, I just sense an inconsistent standard here. Nrets 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hardly going to defend the notability of a videogamer group; do go ahead and VFD that, and I'll probably vote to delete. That said, I don't see any evidence that this "project" is anything more than one guy's pet project. Regarding mainstream media exposure; I'm sympathetic to the argument that mainstream media shouldn't determine notability, but according to the article the project's "primary focus is generating public pressure on the White House"; this really must produce some sort of result in the media. If it hasn't, then the project is non-notable, because it's highly unlikely that it's been even remotely influential in its primary mission. CDC (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Granted, like most small NGO's this one has almost no actual impact, but they do seem to have groups accross the country so its no tiddly-winks. I see your point, but I still stand by my vote. Nrets 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one more thing, I agree with the links relating to this group being removed from various articles since they clearly are not major players in the Bush administration policy toward, say, the Sudanese civil war. However, I do think that a lot less notable groups are allowed to maintain an entry, for example see: Ninjas in Pyjamas. I do not see why a group of people who play video games are more notable than an actual organization that seems to advocate responsible government and good causes, no matter how self-promoting they are. I really have no stake whether Bogen Project stays or goes, I just sense an inconsistent standard here. Nrets 14:34, 14 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.