Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 01:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important! Search has to be in the Geman Name "Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug" , not with Military History Foundation of the Canton of Zug.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did just that, and it gave me less than 800 google hits, including the own website and social media. The Banner talk 10:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ther is no regulation that it must have 801, 900, 1000 or what ever goole hits. Also it is wirten in Books about it.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could please translate this in English? The Banner talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization ... recreation should be allowed in the future if additional sources are found BlueSalix (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueSalix you have to search with the German name, not with the english translation..Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable organization. Preserving Swiss Military History of the canton Zug, , responible for the only still existing Bristol Bloodhound Complex. Preserving Bunkers and open them for visitorsFFA P-16 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: FFA P-16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

We have enough sources:

David Külling, Manfred Hildebrand, Maurice Lovisa: Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe. VBS 2008 David Külling, Manfred Hildebrand, Maurice Lovisa: Military monuments in the area of the Luftwaffe. VBS 2008
Silvio Keller, Maurice Lovisa, Thomas Bitterli: Militärische Denkmäler in den Kantonen Uri, Schwyz und Zug. Inventar der Kampf- und Führungsbauten. (Hrsg.) Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport, Bern 2005 [1]
Patrick Jordi: Militärhistorische Stiftung und die Festungen im Kanton Zug, Baar 2002
website - with all necessary information on the visits of the fortresses and the museum "Bloodhound"
Website ZDT - ZDT Zug depot technology history
Website FORT - CH - Homepage of the Swiss civilian organizations for fortresses
Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug: Karten der Werke
Die Schweizerische Fliegerabwehr 75Jahre Flab 1936-2011 , Albert Wüst, ISBN 978-3-905616-20-0
Bloodhound unit as museum in Menzingen, Switzerland

FFA P-16 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, I did not check the rest, but the first one (Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe) does not mention the organisation at all! The Banner talk 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well ,if you don't understand what i had answered to your comment about the google search, it is no surprise that you don't understand the context in Militärische Denkmäler im Bereich der Luftwaffe. Also that you ignor all the other sources shows cleary that you use Deletios Nominations against me.FFA P-16 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that I say it blunt: you are falsifying sources, making the whole article unreliable. The Banner talk 22:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. Only because you are not able to unerstand the context about this sources and references is not a reason to delet this articel. Also you say only read the first link and you havn't understand the context.Is one thing but ignoring all the other ones Show your true motivation... Because just a look at the second one [2] " Zusammen mit dem eidgenössischen Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport (VBS) und der Militärhistorischen Stiftung des Kantons Zug (MHSZ) wurde nach Wegen gesucht, um eine komplette Feuereinheit für die Nachwelt zu erhalten. ...Das VBS gestattet der MHSZ und dem Kanton Zug den Zutritt zur Anlage. Die MHSZ ist für den Museumsbetrieb zuständig und ermöglicht im Rahmen von Führungen auch den Besuch für die Öffentlichkeit." FFA P-16 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of "passing mention"? The Banner talk 09:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "passing mention" the organization exists since 1994, The "Bloodhound" Museum exists since 2002. It is the only Museum on the world who has preserved the whole Bloodhound System ( not only the Missile) also the other Museum who contains Vehicles of Public Transportation, Firefightingvehicles and Military trucks& tanks exists since 2009. Also, like already told, the Militärhistorische Stiftung des Kantons Zug is also part in Documents and in a Book. Also the MHSZ has created documents for the highschools of the canton Zug.[3] FFA P-16 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rework into a list of military heritage sites in Switzerland. Compare Template:List of cultural property of national significance in Switzerland for (civil) examples. The sites themselves are probably notable enough for a list, particularly at the national level (there was something of an obsession in Switzerland to bunkerize the whole country during the Second and Cold War), but this local foundation as such is unlikely to be notable and I'm not seeing the sources to convince me otherwise. Sandstein 12:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone who knows German sort out the claims of notability made above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read German. The sources do not establish notability for the foundation because they are not independent of it, as they are mostly published on the foundation's own website (http://www.mhsz.ch). The paper by Patrick Jordi is an unpublished student paper. The Swiss Air Force publications do not mention the foundation, except once as a passing mention. Sandstein 09:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation is only the overall organization. the two museums are part of it. An Musuem of this size is notable.. and in this articel we have two museums.I see no need to delet all of this Informations about the hardware, the Museums, only because the organisation should be not notable.FFA P-16 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not gonna !vote on this one since it's difficult to conclusively evaluate the sources, but they look pretty weak. For example, a news search for the original German name gives exactly six results, and a verbatim news search gives exactly zero. I agree that the places themselves are almost certainly notable, as places themselves normally are, but I am inclined to take User:Sandstein at his word on the quality of what's already in the article.

This could be a good candidate for draftifying, in the case that someone wants to try to excise the "place content" and spin off articles on those. And a good few screen shots may be in order in case anyone wants to write a snarky essay on WP:IMAGEOVERKILL. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a fan page instead of a wiki article; such content belongs on the org's web site, not here. As others pointed out, sources are not sufficient to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- WP does have articles on most publicly accessible museums, etc. This appears to be about an organisation running several. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can read German too, and I completely agree with Sandstein's evaluation of the sources. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 3 April 2017 (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.