Promotional
editLooking back through the article's history, it appears to have always taken a promotional tone, without reliable sources to support claims or significance. I had difficulty finding third party references on Google; one hates to nominate this for speedy deletion, but thus far it's been used as a press release page. Perhaps a non-affiliated contributor can find objective sources and start a rewrite. 99.155.204.237 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion anymore. I have cleaned up the article removing all of the promotional language, and replaced it with what facts I could find online. There is definitely a claim of notability, and it seems there is actual notability to back it up as well. I was able to find one good third-party reference to put in the article too. At any rate, I think it's definitely in better shape now than it has ever been in the past, even if it is significantly shorter. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely--it's an encyclopedic article now, and a good start that can be expanded when more sources are found. Great work. I think the problem for us is that--and perhaps this is typical of such events and their audiences--the primary means of communication and coverage are blogs, tweets, and more underground channels, and are often promotional. Unfortunately those aren't usually acceptable or credible sources, but given the connection to Oxfam and the expanse of the project, I'm really surprised there hasn't been more major media coverage.... 99.155.204.237 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Spoke too soon; the page might need to be protected from self-promotion. 99.155.204.237 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)