Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Wilhelm Klüver


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Johan Wilhelm Klüver

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A search for sources in several places have not succeeded, so It is not possible to verify the contents of this article. If anyone find sources I am happy to withdraw this nomination. Rettetast (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's related to Billy Kluver. I picked that up in the Google News link and it gives a interesting information, but it's still leaving the rest of the article uncited. --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that does not seem to be the same guy. Correct name, but wrong birthyear, country and occupation. Rettetast (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting mystery. He has received a medal for heroism which only 27 other people (presumably all Norwegians) have received, and the circumstances of his deed appear to be classified. I dislike seeing the AfD instrument applied to articles basically on the grounds of poor references, of course unless a substantial work has been done to dig up references, which I cannot see in this case. I'd say this person is clearly notable unless the article is a hoax. __meco (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have searched A-tekst, bokhylla.no, the usuual google-searches, DIS-norges find a grave database and kongehuset.no. Do you have any other ideas? Rettetast (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any specific suggestions, but I still think giving the issue time is more appropriate and beneficial than attempting to remove the article. As I wrote, unless it's a hoax, this man is notable. __meco (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With the present status of findings related to this article I will retract my keep vote. I will not however support deletion. This article is somewhat of a conundrum, and I don't really see the big harm in keeping it for further investigations into the issues presented here. __meco (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * weak delete Sharing the feeling that it would be sad to lose this one in view of its claims, I've just done a big search and found only one mention of him, which I added to the article. That source has him as second mate on the Lysefjord, not first, and the ship sank and is not mentioned as recovered, so how could he have returned to service on it? I was not able to connect him to the General Fleischer, and the discrepancies regarding the Lysefjord make me less confident of the accuracy of the article. It's also suspicious that he's utterly absent from Norwegian Wikipedia. However, there are 2 medals simultaneously created for WW2 service that the original editor may have meant by "H7 medal": it could be the Haakon VII Frihetsmedalje as someone inferred and that is depicted in the article, or the Haakon VII Frihetskors.  Sadly there is no full list of recipients for these on no.wikipedia as there is for the preceding and overlapping awards, but I find no mention anywhere of there being only 27 recipients of either, and it's also suspicious that the article states he also received the Norwegian War medal, but the articles on the Haakon VII awards say that they are the third grade of the Norwegian War Medal. There may well be sources that show that the original contributor merely misinterpreted details and that this guy does indeed merit an article - albeit I think more logically on the 2 Norwegian wikipedias - but if so I think those sources are either newspapers that aren't indexed by Google, or sources like those given for the 2 Haakon VII awards, of which the first 2 look especially interesting. If someone can get access to such confirmatory material, great, and I tidied up the English in case, but in its absence and given the discrepancies, I can't support keeping the article.Yngvadottir (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just interject that it is not suspicious that he isn't mentioned on the Norwegian Wikipedia. It is not completed, and lacking an article like this would be not particularly spectacular. __meco (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither is en.wikipedia complete! It would be pretty simple to translate the en. article; it indicates no one over there thinks he's notable enough to justify an article. But actually, I think you mistake my point. He doesn't come up at all, with or without an umlaut. Given the claims in the article I'd expected to find a fleeting mention, maybe with a variant spelling, maybe only on nn.wikipedia, maybe not even by name but somewhere in articles on the medals or on the ships.Yngvadottir (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain the same position. I don't find it particularly telling that he is not mentioned on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I don't think that is a strong indicator of his non-notability. There are many orphaned pages, so it's not even necessary for someone who has a page to be mentioned in several other articles. Similarly, the fact that someone isn't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia shouldn't be taken as evidence (strong or weak) that they are non-notable. In this case, with the circumstances of his merited act being withheld, it would be easy to imagine how he would not be mentioned. __meco (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Going back to the original article - which is basically all we have to go on - we find the statement "In 1943 Mr. Klüver and his crew at the d / S Lysefjord was bombed by japaneese submarines outside the coast of Cuba." I don't think we need to dwell on how remarkably implausible this is... The "H7" medal - it's hard to find any specific evidence of the number of recipients of King Haakon VII's Cross of Liberty, which is the higher of the two plausible awards, but here we see 23 British recipients alone - and easily as many again listed in other issues of the Gazette. Unless "the highest accomondation a civillian can recieve in Norway" was mostly awarded to foreigners, this again seems spurious.
 * Basically, we've taken a terrible article making silly claims and polished it a bit until it looks superficially plausible, but the underlying claims are still completely and comprehensively unsupported - and they don't appear to accord with what we know about Norwegian decorations, which is where the claim of notability comes from. Shimgray | talk | 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well found! But I did find confirmation the ship was sunk by a sub, and he served on it . . . but as second mate, and he could not have returned to serving on it - it gone. So as I say, assuming good faith, maybe the original editor misinterpreted some stuff, but the contradictions and absence of mentions of any such extraordinary person make me less confident we can find the evidence to show that that's what happened.Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly wasn't a Japanese submarine, though! I'm a bit torn here - there's just enough connection to reality I can't write it off as a silly hoax, but the rest of it is sufficiently wrong and/or vague that I'd want to.
 * I think, though, we still ought to delete. None of the significant material is actually cited in any way - the award of the medal, etc - and all we can actually confirm is that someone by this name existed and went to sea. Shimgray | talk | 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of convincing arguments otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 11:49, 25 March 2010 (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.