Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Ludwig Institute of Physiology

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 redirect to Leipzig University. There was a rough consensus that this institute, though well known, does not satisfy our notability guidelines. Participants also roughly agreed that this is a topic with potential. Since the page's current content is merely a directory, I don't think there is a case for any of it to be saved. Redirecting acknowledges the importance of the subject as a potential search term. If suitable sourcing emerges, an expansion of the redirect will always be possible. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ludwig Institute of Physiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First of all this just a glorified list of mostly non-notable faculty members and teachers, not an encyclopedic article in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, the only reference in the article is to the faculties website and I couldn't find anything in a before WP:BEFORE about it, except for a couple of trivial name drops in a few science books. Finally, the article is about a facility of University of Leipzig and it's already mentioned there in the University of Leipzig article and there's zero reason to have a badly referenced fork for this. As a side to that, I had originally proposed the article for deletion but the PROD was removed because supposedly this is one of the oldest research centers in the world and there is no other place for the Wikipedia reader to view it's directors. Both of which are completely ridiculous false statements as there have been research centers since at least the 9th-century and there's no reason the couple of actually notable directors can't just be mentioned in the University of Leipzig article. Hopefully if anyone votes keep they have a better reason to keep the article then the person who removed the PROD. Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into either University of Leipzig or Carl Ludwig (perhaps a short para about the Institute as a legacy of his contributions?). The article has remained little changed since its 2010 creation (hardly a sign that there is a thirst for knowledge about all its past faculty members - only three out of 52 are WP-notable). Paul W (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not only does the PROD removal reason make no sense, this article makes no sense: it's about an institute that was started in the 19th century, but at present it is simply a list of people, almost all of whom predate that. This can't be merged, either: there's no source for any of this information. Something mentioning this at the Carl Ludwig article would be fine but is beyond the scope of this AfD (since there is, to reiterate, no sourced information in this article). I don't object in principle to a redirect at this location aimed at University of Leipzig, nor am I taking any position on whether the Institute is notable or not - but this is a WP:TNT or WP:HEY situation. Someone will have to rewrite this from scratch (and prove its notability) to make it a mainspace-ready article, so there's no point in keeping this unless someone does that in the next seven days. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The tone of arguments for deletion or not of articles is disrespectful considering that wikipedians are supposed to be guards of quality; but this is irrelevant to the discussion. Carl Ludwid was a key figure in experimental physiology (had a major influence on the understanding, methods and apparatus used in almost all branches of physiology) and this institute was named after him. I added a link to his wikipedia page, which increases the links to notable people to 4. If we delete this page, there will be no option for other Wikipedians to add to this page whatever information they have and we don't. We are not supposed to know everything in order to start a page -;) It is true that the page needs more development, but deleting it is not the solution. Third, this institute has thrived in the past 2 centuries plus during the ex-communist era; During those periods, we lack publications that are "reliable" in the sense that we have online links. By deleting it, we "delete" the possibility that academics and researchers have a place to start looking for important work conducted by those prominent scientists. Eventually they will have to probably visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_Library https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbibliothek_Leipzig .. But I disagree with the person above who said those people are faculty members and teachers. Being elected Head of such a famous research institute makes one stand out from the thousnds of other faculty members and teachers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuristas (talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For lack of sources. There's no question in my mind that this is a significant research institute. The number of publications coming out from it is impressive as evidenced in searching on the names of scholars in PubMed. However I don't find sources ABOUT the institute (and my German is too limited to search in German sources). If Futuristas or others can add enough to the article to reach notability, I'll vote to keep. I'll also say that it would be a shame to lose this list of scholars, but again more research would be needed for keep. Lamona (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning toward keep A trawl through Google Books has turned enough mentions of the Institute's history that I think it can pass notability with proper referencing.
  • Konrad Krause, Alma mater Lipsiensis: Geschichte der Universität Leipzig von 1409 bis zur Gegenwart (2003)
  • Peter Schwartze, Geschichte des Instituts für Pathologische Physiologie an der Universität Leipzig: Die Entwicklung einer Wissenschaftskonzeption und ihre Verwirklichung 1956 bis 1992 (2015)
  • Die ersten Institute für Psychologie im deutschsprachigen Raum: Ihre Geschichte von der Entstehung bis zur Gegenwart (2020) Atchom (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now to Leipzig University#Faculties. The article consists only of an unsourced list of professors. This is, on its own, inapppropriate content (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). If the sources above do establishe notability, the article can be recreated as a proper article, i.e. with adequately sourced prose about the institute and its history. Sandstein 11:35, 17 March 2022 (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.