Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Borgen Project (3rd nomination)

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. - No consensus for deletion JForget 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Borgen Project

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

Non-notable organization. Almost entirely sourced from its own publications. There is one article from a local university paper and passing mention in two articles on goskagit.com. Though a google news search turns up lots of hits ([1] I looked at 20 (mainly from the first few pages) and found only one mention that wasn't a comment posted by a reader. That one was another passing mention. I did not find any in-depth look at the organization by a substantial news source. The article has been deleted at AfDd twice before under the name Borgen Project - 1st nom; 2nd nom. SiobhanHansa 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The project is mentioned in 5 books and 49 news stories, but as the nominator discovered most of these come from user comments on the news and not the news itself. This is rather strange - Why are so many people talking about something (primarily for stats) that few newspapers seem to care about? (The commments aren't spam.) This USA Today story appears to be a good source, but a would like to see a little more proof of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but definite cleanup needs to happen and better references included. Artemis84 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article obviously means something to quite a few people - the fact that they have resurrected the article twice demonstrates this. Non-profit organizations need to be able to keep their constituencies informed; large corporations do this with advertising. It is my opinion that wikipedia should not base inclusion on whether newspapers, who are more concerned with making enough money to survive rather than reporting news, find a subject to be worth covering. Wikipedia, with no need to "sell" itself and certainly no lack of space, should embrace this organization and the important work that they are doing.Waylando91 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (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.