Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. JForget 00:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Notified Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#External_links Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability criteria met for the Foundation itself, good research. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Non NotableFifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable per WP:CLUB: a non-commercial organisation of international scope and information verifiable by third party sources. --Martintg (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CLUB actually says: "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale." The "museum" does not have branches thoughout the American nation, let alone overseas branches. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is not the role of Wikpedia to provide free advertising to commercial ventures. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- non commercial - non-profit organization Bobanni (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The notability comes from the foundation being created through an act of the American Congress with responsibility for the creation of a memorial in Washington, D.C., as well as an eventual bricks-and-mortar museum. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are no reliable sources for this article just a website. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two websites. And I added a third to make you happy. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need a third party to verify it. Articles should not be based upon websites that do not have independant verification. Please see reliable sources to explain. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I added one. You can do it, too. It's not hard. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need a third party to verify it. Articles should not be based upon websites that do not have independant verification. Please see reliable sources to explain. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Notability: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Basically this avoids two things: providing greater coverage to an organization than it has received in mainstream sources and ensuring that there is sufficient coverage so that an NPOV article can be written. I notice that Lee Edwards, who the Heritage Foundation says "is widely regarded as the chief historian of the American conservative movement" is the chairman, so I am sure that reliable sources would question the neutrality of the site, if it had received any notice at all. It is best to leave it as a redirect to the Edwards article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Martintg provided the links above showing significant coverage. The article is a stub. We don't delete stubs because they are stubs. The reason this was nominated for deletion, non-notability, has been shown to be incorrect. Your reason for wanting deletion, that it is a commercial venture getting free advertising on wikipedia, has also been shown to be incorrect. But you just ignore these things. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Notability: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Basically this avoids two things: providing greater coverage to an organization than it has received in mainstream sources and ensuring that there is sufficient coverage so that an NPOV article can be written. I notice that Lee Edwards, who the Heritage Foundation says "is widely regarded as the chief historian of the American conservative movement" is the chairman, so I am sure that reliable sources would question the neutrality of the site, if it had received any notice at all. It is best to leave it as a redirect to the Edwards article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The no. 1 hit is www.victinsofcommunism.org and the rest were mirror sites or sites that Lee Edwards writes for. However it has today (Nov. 2nd, 2009) been written up in the New York Times which allows us to write an NPOV article.[1] However it still lacks notability. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, I find mention of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in the Washington Times, Jerusalem Post, National Review, Evening Standard, Philippine Star, Taipei Times, etc, etc, [2]. What search engine are you using? --Martintg (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of your sources were written before the museum was set up. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
It is weirdI find it unusual to describe an organization established by an Act of the U.S. Congress as nonnotable. - Altenmann >t 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument for notability is intensely provincial. And, to expand, can someone locate the title and text of the act, possibly even cite it? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your criticism in plain words, so that I could improve my argument. Please keep in mind that 90% of world population lives in "province" according to someone's high-brow opinion, so I see nothing wrong in provincial arguments. Just the same, I can look up an insulting adjective for the opposite kind of arguments. I am aware that there is an opinion that US Congress profusely wastes money of American taxpayers, but still, the activities of top power echelons are...er... of interest to public, even if to criticize, hence notable. - Altenmann >t 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no indication the VCMF is an owned corporate entity, operating instrumentality, or subunit of a department of the US Government. Parliamentary institutions of all kinds pass all kinds of acts, the notability doesn't inhere in a particular act, or a particular parliamentary forum, but in other features of the Act. Claiming a US forum is particularly notable is the provincial aspect. Is the Act in question more than just a salutory act; or more than the last five lines of an omnibus act like a budget. If the act is something more along the lines of VCMF Establishment Act, or some other specific concession, naming right, etc, ie: a unique act of establishment, then that's towards notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I understand your arguments. However I disagree about "provincial": we are not talking about "a US forum" we are talking about US gov't, and I am not saying it is "particularly" notable. I would say that gov't instruments of any state are notable, not because I am banana-eating Zamunda provincial, but because I maintain an opinion that governments influence lives of whole nations, hence their activities are inherently notable. You are free to disagree. - Altenmann >t 02:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no indication the VCMF is an owned corporate entity, operating instrumentality, or subunit of a department of the US Government. Parliamentary institutions of all kinds pass all kinds of acts, the notability doesn't inhere in a particular act, or a particular parliamentary forum, but in other features of the Act. Claiming a US forum is particularly notable is the provincial aspect. Is the Act in question more than just a salutory act; or more than the last five lines of an omnibus act like a budget. If the act is something more along the lines of VCMF Establishment Act, or some other specific concession, naming right, etc, ie: a unique act of establishment, then that's towards notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Section 905 of Public Law 103-199 of .December 17, 1993 I guess it is searchable, whoever knows how to navigate in US Law databases. - Altenmann >t 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See section 905 of Public Law 103-199, which authorises the establishment of the foundation as an independent entity for the construction of the memorial. --Martintg (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It says in part, "there is a danger that the heroic sacrifices of the victims of communism may be forgotten as international communism and its imperial bases continue to collapse and crumble", and indeed, it seems that beating the dead horse of Communism is not so fashionable already: it was expected to raise $100 mln for the memorial and museum, but barely got 1% of the sum, i.e., 1c instead of $1 per victim of communism. Of course, underwear of Britney Spears is more notable from non-provincial point of view, I guess. - Altenmann >t 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 905b1B only encourages the National Captive Nations Committee to form such an organisation. The NCNC is authorised to construct a monument. The VCMF isn't established by an Act of Congress at all. I'd suggest seeking notability in sources which actually name the VCMF. I really have no interest in the underwear. Governments may influence the lives of nations, but this act doesn't create the VCMF, or order anyone to do so. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Act of Congress specifies that "The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is encouraged to create an independent entity for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating the memorial." That entity is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The onus is on you to show how a foundation instrumental in creating a national monument in Washington D.C. relating to the victims of the international communist movement,[3] the dedication of which was performed by the president and attended by foreign ambassadors and parliamentarians from Eastern Europe,[4] which has national and international advisory councils including top names from around the globe,[5][6] which has created an online Global Museum on Communism with articles written by academics from institutions and universities across the country,[7][8][9][10][11] which is in the process of raising money to build a national museum is non-notable.[12][13] How did you come to that conclusion?AmateurEditor (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cites please, from RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've inserted links into my previous post. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cites please, from RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Act of Congress specifies that "The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is encouraged to create an independent entity for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating the memorial." That entity is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The onus is on you to show how a foundation instrumental in creating a national monument in Washington D.C. relating to the victims of the international communist movement,[3] the dedication of which was performed by the president and attended by foreign ambassadors and parliamentarians from Eastern Europe,[4] which has national and international advisory councils including top names from around the globe,[5][6] which has created an online Global Museum on Communism with articles written by academics from institutions and universities across the country,[7][8][9][10][11] which is in the process of raising money to build a national museum is non-notable.[12][13] How did you come to that conclusion?AmateurEditor (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See section 905 of Public Law 103-199, which authorises the establishment of the foundation as an independent entity for the construction of the memorial. --Martintg (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your criticism in plain words, so that I could improve my argument. Please keep in mind that 90% of world population lives in "province" according to someone's high-brow opinion, so I see nothing wrong in provincial arguments. Just the same, I can look up an insulting adjective for the opposite kind of arguments. I am aware that there is an opinion that US Congress profusely wastes money of American taxpayers, but still, the activities of top power echelons are...er... of interest to public, even if to criticize, hence notable. - Altenmann >t 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about something from an academic journal: P Williams, The Afterlife of Communist Statuary: Hungary's Szoborpark and Lithuania's Grutas Park, Forum for Modern Language Studies, 2008, Volume 44, Number 2, Pp. 185-198. --Martintg (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly the organisation is discussing in passing in footnote 37. "37 If Szoborpark and Grutas Park reflect a wry eulogy to state socialism, a very different strategy informs the recent dedication, on 12 June 2007, of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism on the Mall in Washington D.C. (the geographic centre of American monumental pageantry). In 1993 the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was given approval by an Act of Congress to build a memorial to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism. The memorial will feature a paved plaza of approximately 900 square feet with a 10-foot-high figural sculpture atop a simple stone pedestal 3' 6 high. The sculpture is a bronze female figure based on the "Goddess of Democracy" statue erected in 1989 by the pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. " Williams (2008) fn37. A number of independent newspaper articles at different times (to avoid press release duplicate articles) focused specifically on the VCMF would be sufficient citation. Passing references really aren't suitable. If they are what they have been said to be, these should be available. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the Russian news outlet Kommersant or the Taiwanese Taipei Times --Martintg (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly the organisation is discussing in passing in footnote 37. "37 If Szoborpark and Grutas Park reflect a wry eulogy to state socialism, a very different strategy informs the recent dedication, on 12 June 2007, of the Memorial to the Victims of Communism on the Mall in Washington D.C. (the geographic centre of American monumental pageantry). In 1993 the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was given approval by an Act of Congress to build a memorial to commemorate the more than 100 million victims of communism. The memorial will feature a paved plaza of approximately 900 square feet with a 10-foot-high figural sculpture atop a simple stone pedestal 3' 6 high. The sculpture is a bronze female figure based on the "Goddess of Democracy" statue erected in 1989 by the pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square. " Williams (2008) fn37. A number of independent newspaper articles at different times (to avoid press release duplicate articles) focused specifically on the VCMF would be sufficient citation. Passing references really aren't suitable. If they are what they have been said to be, these should be available. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about something from an academic journal: P Williams, The Afterlife of Communist Statuary: Hungary's Szoborpark and Lithuania's Grutas Park, Forum for Modern Language Studies, 2008, Volume 44, Number 2, Pp. 185-198. --Martintg (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marting and others, please don't assume that the main goal is to convince Fifelfoo that he is wrong. The main goal is to make a good article. Why don't you rather spend your time to expand the text and put the refs you cite into the article. I am doing my piece. - Altenmann >t 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. (BTW, like that outdent template, pretty cool) --Martintg (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tapei Times is RS and Kommersant appears to be RS. They're non US, so it demonstrates the international scope of the notability. (They should go into the article). They're still only one moment of time, the dedication of the statue. Maybe searching around the time that Congress passed the law? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Added Taipei & Kommersant. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should think WP:NOBLECAUSE would apply here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have found, and added, several news sources discussing this foundation. Clearly passes WP:GNG due to extensive news coverage over the past 16 years. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you have. Well done! Keep owing to the new sources, which are sufficient.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep , based on e.g. act of congress. what was the reason for nominating this? Smallbones (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Act of Congress is suffient in and of itself in this case. As for any claim that no museum which does not have overseas branches somehow does not meet WP requirements -- 90% of all museums would get pulled. [14] dedicated by President G. W. Bush. Multiple mentions in the NYT over the years. 72 mentions in googlebooks cites. [15] mentioned in Congressional Record multiple times. [16] tracking resolutions in Congress. Numerous other mentions. Not even a conceivable deletion. Collect (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge with Victims of Communism Memorial. Everything placed in the public realm by financial subscription will have some sort of trust or committee associated with it, and the Foundation's activities apart from the sculpture don't seem significant. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2009 (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.