Template:Did you know nominations/Borghild Project


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Victuallers (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Borghild Project

 * ... that the Borghild Project was hailed as proof that the Third Reich was building a sex doll for its soldiers, although the existence of this project has been called into question?
 * Reviewed: T. Rex and the Crater of Doom

Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 16:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svgss: Good. Length: Good. Policy: Fine, but I really think you should more strongly emphasize the liklihood that this is a hoax in the lead and in the general tone of the article. Hook is good. QPQ is good. Just polish this and it should be fine. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How does it look now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it should be even more explicit than in your revision. I'll edit the opening sentence. Tell me if you think it's too heavy handed. Abyssal (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Abyssal (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a few more tweaks. Let me know if you're okay with them. Abyssal (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That works for me, and thanks for fixing the wording there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Should be good now. Abyssal (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm going to substitute one of the "not yet" ticks (I can never remember which is which, exactly) because I really think the article needs more work -- it needs to be clearer that this is a hoax. I don't usually worry too much about article quality at DYK -- it's supposed to be new content -- but this is a bit too embarrassing for WP. EEng (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It says it's a hoax in the first sentence... Abyssal (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it says that the Borghild Project was "the subject of a hoax", as if it's a real thing about which a hoax was perpetrated. Later it says it was "called into question", as if there's some doubt. The final section is headed "Evidence for a hoax", again as if there's some question. And the hook itself uses that phrasing again, "the existence of this project has been called into question". And who "hailed" it? -- there are only two sources in the whole article, so who did the hailing?

(later...) From what I can tell after looking into this briefly is that a short comedic film was make in 2009, The Borghilde Project (note the spelling) and everything comes from that. It doesn't appear to have been a hoax, in that no one I can see was trying to fool anyone -- maybe it's a meme? I don't know, but since both the article, and the sources it uses, don't even seem aware of the film there's something seriously wrong in the presentation. I'm sorry to seem harsh but while it's OK for an article to have gaps, this really leaves the reader with a complete misimpression of the nature of this ... whatever it is. EEng (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look at it this weekend, as I am busy until then and barely have time to do anything other than work. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I meant to write here that I did fix it up a bit two weeks ago, so let me know what you think! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ktr, do you have the Ferguson book? If so, what are the cites behind footnotes 1, 2, 3, and 4 starting on page 24? EEng (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do, and it's right here. Can you not see it? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the text, but not the footnotes (nos 1,2,3,4). I'd like to know what they say. I hope you don't think I'm being troublesome, but I just want to make sure that we get straight the hoax vs. serious aspect, and if it's actually a hoax, where it came from. EEng (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot see the book's end pages, so I wonder if we can get someone in a WikiProject who might have the book to look over it for us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, Boston Public Library has it, but unfortunately I'm going up the Amazon today and won't be back until May 15 or 20 (depending on the annual anaconda migration). EEng (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn, I wish I could have known this last weekend, as I was just in Boston on Sunday. Do you want to wait until then, or assume good faith? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * any update on this. Been stale since 28 April. Blethering  Scot  22:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing on my end, as I am waiting to see what EEng thinks and if I need to edit this further. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with this -- we need to sort out the apparent conflict of sources. As it happens I've just arrived in Boston so I'll look up this unusual tome in the next few days. EEng (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To the library tomorrow. How embarrassing it will be to turn in this call slip... EEng (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, a funny thing happened on the way to the library. Stand by... EEng (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This nomination is four months old today, the article has not been edited for two months, and the issue of whether this is actually a hoax or not has been hanging for over a month and a half. Can we please have a status report? If the discrepancy between sources can't be solved soon, perhaps it's time to close this as a good try, but unsuccessful. If interlibrary loan hasn't been tried to get the book yet, Kevin might want to try it. Unfortunately, it's too late for this to be eligible for April Fools. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, OK, it's my fault. Tomorrow, I promise. EEng (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reviewed everything, including the Ferguson book, and here's what's going on. First of all, there's is no question that this is a hoax -- it's not "called into question", it's just plain a hoax. The question then becomes: is it a notable hoax (or maybe some kind of meme). And the answer to that, IMO, is No. Only one source (Ferguson) actually recognizes that it's a hoax -- the rest (Huffington Post, Graeme Donald, Daily Mail, Herald Sun) are credulous sources that were taken in. A hoax noticed by only a single source can't be called notable. I think ultimately this article should go to AfD (sorry) but we can afford to wait a while to see if can come up with more sources establishing notability as a hoax.
 * In the meantime it certainly can't be a DYK. Make no mistake... I take no delight in this. I'd love to run a droll, suggestive hook (see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dr._Young%27s_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators), but barring new sources I don't think it can happen. EEng (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * as per summary by Eeng - this is just not improving and has major problems Victuallers (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)