Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabuur

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 21:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nabuur[edit]

Promotional spiel. Not encyclopedic.--ZayZayEM 02:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep, it needs a serious rewrite, it's more notable than many of the websites currently in wikipedia--nixie 02:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely needs a rewrite since it looks like an advertisement. Gets about 39,400 Google hits (but only about 6000 outside site:www.nabuur.com). --Idont Havaname 03:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is a positive tone to the article for which I accept responsibility. However, I believe it is consistent with these guidelines. It is about something new, in concept and intention, and thus the task of definition is different from that for familiar items such as dog or cat or Albert Einstein. While it speaks positively, I am not aware of inaccuracies. There is reference to belief which does not seem inappropriate for a new and idealistic matter. Note that belief is expressed as belief and not as fact. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure if--82.92.181.162 13:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) this is the right way to make this entry... please clarify if I am procedurally wrong Dennis Argall
Weak Delete. It did get a mention in the New York Times, and it sounds like it has quite worthy goals, but there are thousands of non-profit NGOs out there, many even with similar goals. I think the familiarity test should probably be applied in this case. But maybe not! That's why I'm going with the "weak" here. HyperZonk 23:24, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, considering there are thousands of non-profit organizations out there, there is nothing here really that notable from the rest. Megan1967 01:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough, 30,000 Google hits and with the support of the UN volunteer organization. I have cleaned it up. JoaoRicardo 08:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, multiple authors have contributed to the page, and appear to be engaged in a sincere effort to bring it to a good standard. Given that the policy on vanity pages states articles about start-up businesses are acceptable, the existance of thousands of other non-profit organisations is not a significant consideration. (Unless for-profit organisations are inherently more interesting than non-profit organisations.) If there are problems with the Nabuur entry, the deletion policy states that they should be resolved by merging with another entry, or by listing it as needing attention. NickArgall 13:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (I am a blood relative of Dennis Argall and occasional user of nabuur.com.)
Keep. It's one of the first sites (if not the first site -- but at least one with outreach and result) for people to connect with a distant village or community, and help mobilising information, contacts, influence, or other resources, to serve the local agenda of the community, rather than the institutional or fund-raising agenda of a development agency or NGO.(Rolf Kleef, 13:40, 14 Feb 2005)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.