Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague

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 delete, leaving a redirect to Charles University in Prague. Neıl ☎ 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague

German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague duplicates only the main article Charles University in Prague and adds nothing new. —Zorro CX 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Note This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. The Dominator (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - sure appears to be a duplicate article which is already covered here. BWH76 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

*Keep Definitely needs its own article, it doesn't duplicate, simply add the "Main" template. The Dominator (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Change to redirect on closer inspection, I agree with TerriersFan that it could have just been redirected without an AfD. The Dominator (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • They are different schools, just because it duplicates now doesn't mean that more info isn't available. This is information that can be sourced and is notable. Perhaps the section about it at Charles University should be shortened to accommodate the daughter article. The Dominator (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, they are not. German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague was the succesor of Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague. I agree, if special article about German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague would be available, it would be useful. But this is not the case. And we vote about the present state of the article, not about its potencial. Not all the information that can be sourced is notable. I agree that German Charles-Ferdinand University is notable, but now it is included into Charles University in Prague. It is against Wikipedia policy to have multiple articles about same items. "Perhaps the section about it at Charles University should be shortened to accommodate the daughter article." Why? Is there any advantage? —Zorro CX 00:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As you see above, I have changed my vote, however, you are wrong about one thing, we are not debating about an article's present state, rather it's necessity to be here and yes it's potential, nothing to do with how the article presently looks. The Dominator (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. You can recognize it from the following example: You write nonsense about notable subject, such as Bush. Such an article will be deleted since there is no usefullness to keep nonsense in the history of the article and one has a duty to repair completly wrong article about a topic which deserves encyclopedic article. —Zorro CX 15:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's different, a nonsense article would be speedy deleted under on of the WP:CSD, if it was brought to AfD an article about Bush would definitely not be deleted, just reshaped, so either you're wrong or the example you used is a bad one. The Dominator (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you talk about a different thing. If you establish an article called ghdfj, it will be nonsense and it will be speedied. So does an article called Bush, but with a content ghdfj. But completely different is the case when you establish an article called Bush and provide some useful content, but no so useful. In that case AfD is needed. —Zorro CX 21:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not true, the subject of "Bush" is relevant and notable and can obviously be expanded into a good article, if it was AfD'd then it would not be deleted but rewritten, even a new article on a notable subject with the content "gdfddf" wouldn't be deleted but just reshaped provided that reliable sources exist. The Dominator (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why? There is no good reason to collect patent nonsense about notable subjects. I will follow WP:POINT, but if you begin articles Josef Lux, Vladimír Mlynář, or Albín Bráf and so on with ghdfj I am certain they would be deleted. —Zorro CX 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I nominated it before and the reasons still prevails. It duplicates the main article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Charles University in Prague - since this is an obvious duplicate page why wasn't it just boldly redirected? TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect, as a good solution, was a subject of the edit war resulting in this AfD. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In that case we should delete this page and recreate it as a redirect. The Dominator (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect - why did we need an AfD for this? Obvious. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect the current version is just a duplicate of article "Charles University in Prague". I think that there should be main article "Charles University in Prague" and once some sections get too long, sub-articles for "The Insigniae Controversy" and other topics can be created. JanSuchy (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as two separate(d) universities deserve two articles. It was the Czech who demanded a split in the 19th century and intensified it after 1918. How come that some Czech(?) editors want only one article on Wikipedia? Remove duplicate content from the "main" article about the current Czech Charles University in Prague, like claims that Einstein, Kafka, and other prominent figures had anything to do with the Czech U when in fact they studied/taught at the German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague. Actually, three articles would be best, one from the beginning to the split, and two afterwards, with the current Czech university having a 120+ year history rather than 660. At least, the list of Alumni needs to be sorted into Czech and German. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What? Charles University has only 120 years history? You must be kidding. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, the article about the German University now duplicates all the history since 1347, although the German University was established only in 1882. In case the separate article about the German University should be preserved, it should concentrate strictly on years 1882–1945 and bring new information, not just duplicate the main article.
  • Intensified what? The university was already splitted.
  • Ethnicity of editors is not important and actually is sensitive data.
  • Since the article about the German University has no additional content, it is only reasonable to merge it with the main article.
  • The article Charles University in Prague is not only about the Czech University. It is about all the history.
  • "[It] claims that Einstein, Kafka, and other prominent figures had anything to do with the Czech U . . ." It does not. Even if it does, it would be the reason to change it, not to establish special article for German POV. The Wikipedia is ruled by NPOV.
  • "Actually, three articles would be best, one from the beginning to the split, and two afterwards, with the current Czech university having a 120+ year history rather than 660." Nonsense. Since the original university splitted, both the new universities are successors of the original one. The Czech University has six centuries of history and so did the German University.
  • "At least, the list of Alumni needs to be sorted into Czech and German." Doubtful. Who was Czech, who was German? What about another ethnicities? Was Einstein German? In my POV he was Jewish and American. —Zorro CX 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Einstein lectured at the German University, not the Czech University. No "other" ethnicities/nationalities/citizenships involved here. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep only because a lot of issues have not been solved here. One issue is that the creation for an additional article for the Czech Charles-Ferdinand University should be discussed. They split from each other at the same time, and the Czech Unviersity was equally notable as this one. The article for Charles University in Prague assumes this spit was not equal. In the event that no article for the Czech half is created, then this article should be dedicated to the time period of the split, being named something along the lines of the Divided Charles-Ferdinand University. This article would then reflect the time period in which one university was split into two universities. In my opinion, there is too much information here to include all in one article. --DerRichter (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Which one? An additional article for the Czech Charles-Ferdinand University would be useful only in case if you have content for it. There is none.
  • "Czech University was equally notable as this one." Yes, but it does not mean there is a need to have 3 stubs instead of one comprehensive article as the Wikipedia standard is.
  • "The article for Charles University in Prague assumes this spit was not equal." Why? Where?
  • "In the event that no article for the Czech half is created" Yes. And for the German University there should be no stub as well. Or do you wish three articles with indentical content? Why to triplicate the stuff?
  • "this article should be dedicated to the time period of the split, being named something along the lines of the Divided Charles-Ferdinand University." Why? Is there any real reason for such an totally artificial split?
The "artificial split" was demand by Czechs in the 19th century, then cemented by Czechs in the 20th century. Now its the 21st century, the split is denied, and the current U is claimed as the only one.-- Matthead  Discuß   17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "In my opinion, there is too much information here to include all in one article." Which one? Please, try to avoid weasel words. —Zorro CX 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay I meant during the time they were split, the articles probably could contain different information if they were different entities. Ill give you that most of the Insignia controversy section is pretty much the same. But it was just a suggestion man. Chill out. --DerRichter (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. It is a similar problem as with history of East and West Germany. Should they be treated separatedly? They have many things in common and these two nations was one ethnic only. Some books have one text for the history of Germany after the war. And so does the University. "Ill give you that most of the Insignia controversy section is pretty much the same." And this is true about everything. —Zorro CX 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV duplicate.--Molobo (talk) 16:58, 23 March 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.