Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Moller

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. - Philippe 16:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Claus Moller

Claus Moller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable person. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No real claim of meeting WP:Notability in article; gsearch not coming up with notability for this Claus Moller in first half dozen pages of ghits; Googlenews not coming up with any hits for this Claus Moller. (There is also a cyclist with the same name who seems to have a better claim of notability, but is still marginal.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Fabrictramp above, I had a look online, and his best-selling book is also the only one I could find any information about, it seems popular with the customers on Amazon, but I don't think that's enough to ensure WP:N. The page looks like a resumé, and should be treated as such I think. BananaFiend (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, just a person, a non-notable one at that.  Marlith (Talk)  16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Please wait until I have first completed the page I thank you for your comments and respect your views so far. However, I have not had the opportunity yet to even complete the first page, and references as evidence. However, since your comments, I had started to add substantial TV and Publishing House references. I expect to complete the page within a couple of days. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyoung99 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As of now I don't see what further edits may establish Notability, but I suppose we could wait a few days to see what comes of it Wjw0111 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of any reliable sources to back up the claim of notability - the sole reference on the article is the subject's own promotional website & my own quick trawl for anything better has not come up with anything. nancy ^(talk) 11:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I have now substantially rewritten the article, based on my understanding from your comments, on the criteria for Notability. I have quoted the new and unique work contributions and, over the next 24 hours, I will now add the external references and links to support the sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyoung99 (talk • contribs)
• Deletethe rewritten article is worse in some respects than the original) "A complaint is a gift" is the only book with substantial holdings in WorldCat, but that's probably because his coauthor for that one, Janelle Barlow, (not a regular coauthor) is very notable in this subject, much more so than he.DGG (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Please reconsider this Just one of the references in this article is Professor Tony Bendell, Professor of Quality in the UK. His referenced paper 'The old masters never fade away' undisputably recognises Moller and his work alongside two other most notable Quality gurus contributing to Western thinking, Philip Crosby and Tom Peters. The UK Government Department of Trade and Industry recognised and published Moller as one of 8 Quality gurus in the world. Is this not notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronyoung99 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE! I agree with Ron Young on this one. The BBC made a television programme about him back in 1988 where he was credited with helping British Airways overcome all of their problems at the start of the 1980s. This was said by the then MD, Colin Marshall. See here: Claus Moller on BBCFurthermore, there are several articles by Claus Moller in renowned management magazines: Harvard Business Review, Bnet, Emerald Insight, and many more. He also has a profile on IMDB: IMDB TV appearances. In Denmark he has been feted in all of the leading business newspapers as one of the key innovators in Danish industry and the Nordic Council have highlighted that he is the single largest contributor to the model of Scandinavian management. This is clearly reflected by the fact that a biography of him is being released in Denmark later on this year: Biographical book. There was also an article just two weeks ago about the 100 top talents in Danish business where the consultant had been mentored by Claus: Business.dk top talent Mirja Olesen. A case study about knowledge management and social networking in management consultancies was presented just a couple of weeks ago in Athens and Claus Moller's old organisation was referenced with Claus's name: Athens presentation. Furthermore, with regards to the comments by DGG above, this unfortunately is just the effect of somebody being better at doing web marketing than others. The book that you refer to was released by Berret-Koehler in 1996, but the original concept and book (sold through the seminars as most of the other 4 million+ copies sold) was actually written by Claus Moller back in 1993. Janelle's contribution to that project was finding US examples to put around the concept. The original A Complaint is a Gift was first published in Danish under ISBN 87-89937-105. For more links, please feel free to contact me User: PRasmussen ^{User talk:PRasmussen(talk)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRasmussen (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • — PRasmussen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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.