Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire at Theodor Mommsen house

Add links
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 MERGE, mainly to Theodor Mommsen and perhaps a bit also to Getica (Jordanes) to exapand the phrase in that article "...was destroyed in a fire at Mommsen's house..." to include perhaps the date at least. It's not a long article and I may not merge the whole thing into the Mommsen article, so this is a deletey kind of merge, I guess. Herostratus 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire at Theodor Mommsen house

[edit]

This incredibly poorly written article fails to assert any notability of the subject, is poorly written, and completely fails to meet manual of style guidelines. I originally speedied it, but the author promptly recreated it and complained on my talk. I'd like to close this matter once and for all, and I suggest that we delete it. alphachimp 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've restored old versions of the article. The closing admin can delete them. Note that this has been speedied twice. I don't object to another speedy, but I'm not going to do it. alphachimp 07:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge and redirect a couple of sentences into Theodor Mommsen or better yet, Getica. Tragic but unnotable. Sadly, historical documents and artworks are destroyed by intent or accident all the time. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Why not merge with the arts for the particular manuscripts?
    2) But don’t you think it will be redundant to merge it to Getica, to Momsen (which I don’t think is good idea), and to each art for the manuscript? What is important is that the manuscripts burn down not the workroom of Mommsen.
    3)Do Mommsen in his publication provide explicit list of his sources, and the information which book was burn down completely, which one partially? I can’t find it!
Fact every fire is tragic but how many Noble laureates publish works based on by them destroyed sources? His daughter clearly saying, that the fire was initiated (accidentally) by him. I’m not saying (like Aldux falsely accuse me) that Mommsen staged the fire, or I not hypothesize that 'Car of Russia ohrona send an agent/terminator for sake of Pan-Slavism' :) It was a fire: tragic, ironic ... we may say whatever emotional description? I’m far from labeling it - I don’t know; anyway it will be not neutral. The information is scattered... when we have 3 different titles just in top of art Getica (Jordanes) and the first one unreferenced, when I did provided 3 different meaning of the word Getica found just in one source - W Smith dictionary, when is not clear what was the source of Mommsen critical edition, then I believe it will be good to keep the art until by cooperation of Wikipedia Editors (like you) the question which manuscripts was burn down and which were the sources for Mommsen publication, will be answered.
Nasz 12:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incoherent. From what I can tell, the only claim of notability is that three manuscripts were lost. One of them "was not, apparently, an indispensable or even a very important authority for the texts (Jordanes, the Antonine Itinerary, etc.)." Seems maybe a mauscript of Jordanes from Heidelberg University could have been lost. Salt it, since it had two previous deletes.--Work permit 07:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I must admit, the author, though cordial, is quite determined. It was recreated very soon after I deleted it. I don't think salting is in order, as I doubt he'd recreate it after an afd. alphachimp 07:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Theodor Mommsen. This content will become much more concise once it is "de-listified" and the long quotations are excluded from the footnotes (they can be retained in the history and/or put on the talkpage in case somebody wants to check them, but there is usually no reason to quote entire passages of sources in the footnotes unless the interpretation of those passages has been a subject of scholarly debate in itself). Pharamond 08:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • contribute I stared this art and I want to contribute. Nasz 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--about notability--

Two years after the fire in 1882 critical edition of the Jordanes manuscripts was published under title Iordanis Romana et Getica the major source for allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate used in Drang nach Osten. 'Controversial arguments' reverberated in WW1 and WW2 and cost millions of lives. If the manuscripts will not be burned, it may be possible to show them in autochtonic/allochtonic debate.
If you think that the Fire at Theodor Mommsen house it is pure nonsense ….but it is a notable - documented and not curious fact
Nasz 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't a clue what you mean by this. "Allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate" - what does that mean in standard English? Perhaps this is the problem - the article is as difficult (or impossible) to understand as your comment. --Charlene 08:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link and scroll up, there is introduction. ((Do you need separated article ;) it will be deleted/able like this one). I like to keep the subject apart form other subjects. There is tendency in Wikipedia to merge huge articles. The people just forgetting the idea of wiki. Nasz 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nasz, you seem not to be a native speaker of English, and you are also using academic words whose context is unclear. You seem to be arguing that the loss of the historical texts led to the deaths of millions of people, which makes very little sense. I can certainly see that this was a notable event in Mommsen's career, but I can't understand why it needs a separate article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because the information is better encapsulated. One subject/event one article. It may be summary of articles consisting of review of knowledge, but can you imagine(?) wrote in Professor Mommsen article all the details about the fire? That 3 daughters slept in the room under Mommsen work room when the fire begins. That the father had burned hairs. That other newspaper reported a gas explosion unnoticed at least one hour by the sleeping 3 daughters under the work room of hers father. There is a lot of information to collect, I just started to review the sources and to reson of special [animosity of Al-baragit(he mark this art for deletion) days of may work will be lost (but I hired a programmer to write a soft to protect my editions in case like this.So you can now debate about my case). Othervise all will be lost if I will belived in wiki promise. I tought that wiki want to collect knowledge I believe that hard drive space is so chip that should be not limit for details of important events. Look 500 GB HD cost $130 but one hour of time $30(US average). It is a ratio 1:e+8. I was thinking to start a concurrent project of better wiki society, but I hope you have a few kB for this, describetdas to delete event.
Nasz 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? --Tractorkingsfan 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Nasz, you seem to argue at the end that Wikipedia can include even minor topics, which is what we mean when we say that Wikipedia is not paper, but we still should have a reasonable rationale for inclusion of an article. Is this fire separately notable from Mommsen's career or the work itself? Nothing you have said shows this. Sorry about the days of work you put into this (it's not that long, though), but every edit page on this site says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Wikipedia editors don't own their work. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Merge into Theodor Mommsen. Text provides meaningful information, and subject appears notable. But it's fair to say a lot of cleanup is necessary; the article simply can't stand as it currently is, and I understand the previous speedies. Any relevant information could be included concisely and informatively in the above-mentioned, already well-written article. --Tractorkingsfan 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - all this originates by Nasz bizzarre idea that Getica was discovered by Mommsen, even if legions of editions had been made starting from 1515, and that in truth Mommsen forged the work. The Heidelberg manuscript, as the quote itself remembers, is not the single or even the archetypical manuscript of the Jordanes' Getica, as many other manuscripts of the work survive in perfect conditiions. He also seems to be convinced, and has been long pushing in several articles the OR (for which he has yet to provide a reliable source) that the Getica work "the major source for allochtonic argumentation in politicized debate used in Drang nach Osten. 'Controversial arguments' reverberated in WW1 and WW2 and cost millions of lives. If the manuscripts will not be burned, it may be possible to show them in autochtonic/allochtonic debate". Now, Nasz has utterly failed to explain how reprinting a well known book makes Mommsen the starter of this allocthonic/autocthonic debate. As for the "That 3 daughters slept in the room under Mommsen work room when the fire begins. That the father had burned hairs. That other newspaper reported a gas explosion unnoticed at least one hour by the sleeping 3 daughters under the work room of hers father.", passages like these are exactly what should be ment when we say that something is not notable.--Aldux 13:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: has been long pushing in several articles the OR (for which he has yet to provide a reliable source
  • N: Is in this art an element of not documented fantasy? Every sentence is referenced.
  • A: ..as many other manuscripts of the work survive in perfect conditiions..
  • N: I asked you Aldux long before, show me one of this manuscripts. Give a source . All your references bounce to nowhere. Just Shove the manuscript. All your sources are burnt down?
  • A: Mommsen forged the work
  • N: I never say this. I just can not find the sources your reference point to. The "Jordanes Manuscript" sorce edited by Mommsen.
  • A;something is not notable
  • N: I cant find the list of manuscript burned in Mommsen House. Are you interested what was there burned completly and what partialy? What is recoverable what we never recover? Or you dont care about burned books? As you dont care about the truth... did you commented you revert ~"Who care what is in Wikipedia?" ' ?
Nasz 19:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let our German friends do our thinking for us. Stammer 10:28, 10 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fire_at_Theodor_Mommsen_house&oldid=1145537704"