Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borghild Project

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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borghild Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article describes a minor hoax. It got a brief mention in few news outlets and a few passing mentions in the books of weird trivia (and one a bit longer entry in a single reliable source I mentioned below). Media coverage of this hoax seems rather sparse and limited to low quality tabloids and like, our article cites huffpost article which in turns cites Daily Mail (the last time I checked HP is considered a low-quality source and DM is not even allowed on Wikipedia). The only reliable source is the one debunking of this, in the form of a few paragraphs in this book ("The Sex Doll: A History"). The book is reliable (publisher-wise, I couldn't find out much about the author who does not appear to be a scholar, and is described in the book's blurb as "an author and editor living in Perth, Australia."), and the story is discussed there on 3 pages (24-26). That said, the book spends two pages presenting the hoax, and then one not very detailed paragraph debunking it - it's hardly good scholarship. I have serious doubts this hoax is notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, but maybe someone can unearth better sources. This book (self-published so not reliable) claims the story got coverage in 2005 in Der Spiegel, Corriere della Sera, and Clarin, but I couldn't verify those claims. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep renamed to the Borghild Project Hoax. It seems to be mentioned in several books. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Time magazine mentions the book that made this claim https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/12/new-book-claims-hitler-gave-sex-dolls-to-nazi-soldiers/ as does the National Review. https://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/hitler-had-secret-sex-doll-project-greg-pollowitz/ and Snopes mentions the hoax online https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/inflatable-sex-doll/ I don't see any other coverage of it. Interesting article, but does it get significant coverage anywhere? Dream Focus 05:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I find a few other places mentioning this. It all comes from Graeme Donald who claims he discovered this while researching the history of Barbie dolls for a book of his. So either someone lied to him or he just made it up for attention. Dream Focus 05:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, not convinced this is a sufficiently notable hoax. We are not Snopes. The Polish Wikipedia cites this article in German about the hoax. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kusma, Since you brought it up, I should note I started this AfD after seeing the Polish AfD for the Polish article: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:07:05:Projekt Borghild. The argument there is pretty much that the topic is not notable, I tried to save it but concluded the anon who nominated it there is likely right, hence here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Kusma. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - The topic, and subsequent reveal that it was a hoax, got a small bit of coverage, but I agree with the nom that its just not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG as a notable hoax. The one Sex Doll book is pretty much the only good source - the rest are either brief "interesting fact" mentions or are from tabloids. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (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.