Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernicus' nationality (second nomination)

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 of the debate was honestly, WTF? Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copernicus' nationality

POV ping pong, unsourced, probably partly original research. I'm sure there are many debates as to which modern country various historical figures "belong", but it is not a subject worthy of a separate article for each person. Delete or Merge with Nicolaus Copernicus removing a lot of the guff. Arniep 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a copyvio. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What looks like a "copyvio"? Some part or the whole article? --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like an essay or thinkpiece.Blnguyen 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Nominated for deletion on 2 November 2005 [1]. Result: 3 keeps, 1 delete (nominator), 5 merges, closed as "no consensus". Material hasn't been merged, or even smerged. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who call for a Merge apparently expected others to do the work ... --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Again, remeber what it was here in first palce. The Nicolaus Copernicus article was frequently subject of constant revert wars. Moving the whole nationality issue into subarticle was thought as a way to save the Nicolaus Copernicus article from revert wars, summarise the arguments for and against "Polish" or "german" instead of cluttering the page.

Comment This article is basically a nationalist argument, please keep arguments to talk pages. If a subject is not agreed upon amongst experts, an encyclopedia article is not the place to list every single piece of opposing evidence, you should just summarise the disagreement. Arniep 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Material needs to appear in the copernicus article. It makes no sense to have an article of this sort as a result of a compromise between warring factions on Copernicus. Instead, they need to reach a consensus. --Pierremenard 11:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I closed the original AfD as "no consensus". This time I vote delete. JIP | Talk 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is just a talk page thread given its own article; the only result of splitting it out is to give the various POV pushers even more space for their bickering. OK, that's a bit extreme; even so, the article as it stands is quite good enough. There is no problem saying he was born in the town of Thorn in what is now Poland but was then part of Prussia. Or something. It's mostly revisionism anyway. I recommend that they rename it Peachblossom Island and have done with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe "Peachblossom Island" would be as toponymic a settlement in the case of a native of Toruń (Thorn) as it was in the case that you linked. Better idea, though, than Solomon's compromise in 1 Kings 3:15-28. Barno 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, Solomon's compromise. Please change the beginning of the Copernicus article to his well known latin name and declare him "Half Polish, half German" (or the other way around, in alpabetical order). Currently it says "Mikołaj Kopernik ... Polish" which is hardly a compromise.--Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I applaud your creative use of ellipses. The article currently says Mikołaj Kopernik ..., more commonly known by the Latin form Nicolaus Copernicus, was an... astronomer, mathematician... He is now usually described as being Polish. Which from my experience is accurate. Every single mention of him that I've come across in English, calls him a Polish astronomer. --BadSeed 11:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Now that calls to mind an interesting idea: I have at home Robert Gunther's reproduction of the papers of Robert Hooke, who would undoubtedly have referenced Copernicus. But since Hooke wrote predominantly in scholarly Latin that is probably not going to help a lot... - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge synopsis to a one-paragraph section in parent article (or even revise one sentence in the Biography section) and protect, or at least organize watchers to work against edit wars. Barno 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Retracted vote after consideration of Matthead's comment below. Theoretically the various language Wikipedias are supposed to be one thing in a choice of languages, not sources of substantially different content. If the "pl" and "de" wikipedias have documented a real controversy that extends beyond a couple of nutcases, and legitimate references can show its importance outside purely local talk and WP and mirrors, then the "en" version should have at least a bit of encyclopedic overview. I agree with nominator that such "controversies" are not generally WP material. Barno 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue seems to have a centuries-old history and it's very unlikely that Wikipedia can finally solve it in a way that makes everybody happy - or is everybody happy yet? Trying to ignore the problem by deleting the separate nationality article moves the battle back into the main article or its talk were it is even uglier. There's a separate article in Polish Wikipedia as well as in the German. The best solution is to make and keep the Copernicus article itself nice, neutral and calm, and to sort out the nationality article rather than erase it. This seems to be unacceptable for at least two persons, though - my attempt to put some structure to it was tagged utterly pointless and rewarded by this deletion tag. There are already examples in history where attempts for deletion were considered "the Final solution" ... --Matthead 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uh-oh, does this trigger Godwin's Law? Barno 02:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I note Matthead is German, and the article is basically about whether Copernicus was German or Polish. Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, does not exist to pronounce what is correct and what is not. I don't think what nationality Copernicus is or was is something absolutely fundemental to why he is notable as a person, therefore there should not be a separate article on the subject. Arniep 10:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a personal essay. There's been some revert wars on Nicolaus Copernicus about the topic. An NPOV account of the dispute could be written there (if anyone is feeling brave), but this stuff is too poor to be merged. --BadSeed 10:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, unless any non-Wikipedia, authoritative sources can be listed. Otherwise, it's just not verifiable. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. If it ends up being kept, it should be moved to Copernicus's nationality or Nationality of Copernicus, as the current title violates English convention for proper singular posessives ending in "s".[2] -Colin Kimbrell 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup using the information from German and Polish wikipedia to make this an article about the age-long debate that doesn't sound like it is a part of the debate. (Delete "Conclusion" section, for example). Kusma (討論) 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Nicolaus Copernicus. --Revolución (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2006 (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.