Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Königsberg


 * 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 speedy keep. It is clear that this is a naming dispute and that nobody actually wants this page deleted. Renaming or merging should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Königsberg

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad. We do not have two separate articles about Szczecin, Vilnus or Lviv despite analogical history. GizzyCatBella 🍁  10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Point of order: I see this as a merge request. In any case, a notice should be posted on the other article, too. —Michael Z. 19:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Folks, I’m not sure why you hold those bizarre views that to me still don’t make much sense, (this is the same blody city) but if this is the case then keep it constant and build two separate article for other cities in the same region of Russia such as: Baltiysk/Pillau for example, and all these 23 other significant cities and towns in Kaliningrad Oblast --> Come on, will you? :) ... right... I want to hear why not, but other than because "Kaliningrad is a special case etc." because it is not any different from 800 years Pillau or 500 years old Svetly other than size of those towns. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are good historical reasons to keep this article. The articles are clearly disambiguated in hatnotes on both articles, one as before 1945, the other as after 1945. Delete Russia instead. Skyerise (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Russia? What do you mean? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant delete Kaliningrad. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, it does not make any sense whatsoever. You expect an article about the important town to be deleted - but keep one about the city that doesn’t exist anymore. but keep one about the city that doesn’t reflect the present standing... Sorry, but I’m compelled to dismiss such arguments. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So now you are arguing that there are two cities? Skyerise (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (I chose better wording above - striking original). That’s okay, I don’t need to hear anything else from you. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you know this deletion discussion will end up in the news. Hope you're ready to be portrayed as a Russian ally. Or is that Canada? Skyerise (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note - Skyerise just proposed article about Kalinigrad to be deleted instead -->, -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Kaliningrad. This is a surprising WP:POVFORK that escaped our attention, and weirdly, this fork is reproduced on many other Wikipedias (compare wikidata:Q1829 and wikidata:Q4120832). It's not even history of Kaliningrad (which right now redirects to Kaliningrad), it's a full-fleshed article about a town. Note we don't have articles about towns that changed names, including in the former German territories (think Danzig, Breslau, Posen, Stettin, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, the alternative to merging or deleting could be renaming this article to History of Kaliningrad. I didn’t think about this option.. Thanks @Piotrus - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this if the proposed title were History of Königsberg. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not only a renaming. There is a cultural divide here. The city formerly had a German culture, the newly named one has a Russian culture. We don't merge Ancient Egypt into Egypt for similar reasons. Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge To Kaliningrad or History of Kaliningrad. Königsberg has gone by this name for a long time now. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd argue the Kaliningrad is effectively a new city. Königsberg was quite nearly destroyed in WWII. Only 120,000 survivors remained in the city. Of those, the Soviets deported 100,000 Germans back to Germany, leaving only 20,000 (5%) of the pre-war population (372,164 in 1939). There is therefore no cultural continuity, almost no population continuity, and the physical continuity was mostly rubble. The Soviets then brought in their own desired population and built a new city on the remains of the old one. Skyerise (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article focuses on Königsberg when it was still majority German. It explains the history, the demographics, the architecture, the buildings, etc, that cannot be reduced into a section in the article of Kaliningrad. It is also not strange to have a separate article focusing on the history. We do not delete Byzantium and Constantinople just because we have Istanbul, same with Sunda Kelapa and Batavia & Jakarta, Chang'an & Xi'an, Jiankang & Nanjing, Londinium & London, Vindobona & Vienna, Fustat & Cairo, etc etc. GuerraSucia (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the modern town here, not ancient history as your presented examples. We don’t have separate articles for Wrocław and Breslau or Lviv and Lwów which changed under identical circumstances as a result of the WW2 exactly the same as Kaliningrad. Sorry. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not all of the examples come from ancient history, like Constantinople was renamed to Istanbul in 1930. Batavia is in a similar situation with Königsberg, it transformed into Jakarta after Indonesia gained its independence as a result of WW2 and the Indonesian National Revolution (which ended in 1949, so we can say that the transformation of Batavia to Jakarta is even more recent; had the Dutch won the war, the city would still have been called 'Batavia'). We have a separate article for Batavia because the history, the details of the demographics, buildings, architecture, etc, cannot be reduced into a section in the article Jakarta, which discusses the modern city. The same applies for Königsberg and Kaliningrad. Königsberg has a really rich history as a German town (it was part of the Hanseatic League, and it was famous as the city of Immanuel Kant), it cannot be reduced into a section in the article Kaliningrad, which is an entirely new Russian city. GuerraSucia (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The true name of the city in english is Konigsberg, if anything the Kaliningrad article must be merged into this one.XavierGreen (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose i.e. Keep - They represent a settlement at different times in history just like Constantinople and Istanbul. Also my experience is that the historical detail of a place can get watered down in cases when its population has changed from one culture to another. The former culture is suppressed in favour of the current, leaving the article very imbalanced. For example, in some cases, you'd hardly know that a settlement was German and important within the Holy Roman Empire for several centuries prior to the Second World War and that the current culture has only been there for 70 years. The two articles are already well deconflicted in terms of coverage with Königsberg covering the timeline up to WW2 and handing over to to Kaliningrad which focusses on the timeline since then. And both refer to each other appropriately. Bermicourt (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article isn't about modern Kaliningrad, it's about the historical city Konigsberg. Constantinople and Istanbul have the same situation. So does Sparta and Sparta, Laconia, or Classical Athens versus Athens. Cities change significantly over time, and Konigsberg/Kaliningrad had a name change, its entire population changed, the entire culture changed, the political status changed, etc etc. Sometimes it's helpful to have multiple articles to focus on different parts of a city's history. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kalingrad. They are the same city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The city was in large part destroyed, including the university that was one of the primary things it was known for, its population was replaced (many were killed, the remainder were expelled), and the entire regional context and system of governance changed. There is almost no continuity. Merging into Kaliningrad would create a massive UNDUE situation on the city that previously existed on the site. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment for the record, it's been discussed multiple times since 2006 on the article talk page, which anyone can see by glancing at the indexed archives (cute trick, I'll have to learn how to do that). For example,, , , , , , . At least two requested move proposals failed. The article is where it is because Kaliningrad is basically a new city built on the rubble of Königsberg. This is a longstanding position of the majority of editors of the article. It's clear that the nominator didn't look at or ignored the editorial discussion on the matter. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article mainly focuses on the pre-World War II city, while the Kaliningrad article focuses on the post-World War II city. It's acceptable to have two separate articles on seemingly two separate histories, as noted by the examples by the users above. --MuZemike 01:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. While it's true that we don't have separate articles about Danzig, Breslau, Stettin, etc, it's also true that none of those places were arguably as significant historically or culturally as Königsberg, the former capital city of the Duchy/Kingdom of Prussia. And, there's no question that the history of the city of Königsberg easily meets WP:GNG. I think the Constantinople/Istanbul comparison is an apt one to be made here. If you're looking for an official policy, I guess there's always WP:IAR. Bottom line, keeping this article will make Wikipedia a better place, so let's go ahead and keep it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gdańsk was the most important Baltic port throughout all of its existence, also important cultural center, not saying Königsberg wasn't, but certainly Gdańsk/Danzig was far more influential Marcelus (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, silly to debate this at AFD. At best this is a merge proposal, and the article title clearly is a suitable redirect. The situation is quite different from Gdansk/Danzig, which had a significant Polish history before 1945. I also oppose a merge, as 1945 is a natural point where the article can be split up. Article title should be discussed at WP:RM, not at WP:AFD. (We do have History of Bratislava, with Pozsony and Pressburg redirects to the modern city, not to the history, but we have Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul, so there is precedent for either way of structuring such an article). —Kusma (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting case. By the existence of two articles, we are suggesting that the old city of Königsberg has ceased to exist. This carries certain implications. For example, should every city in the Kaliningrad region have two articles? Should the article Tilsit be separated from Sovetsk? From Baltiysk should the article Pillau be separated? What about Danzig? The city was destroyed to a similar extent. Of course, Kaliningrad Oblast is special because here we are dealing not only with almost total destruction and complete replacement of population, but also with almost complete abandonment of reconstruction and changing the name to a completely new one. This, however, cannot be said of similar examples in Poland or the Czech Republic. But on the other hand, medieval Gdansk was burned down in 1308 and a new city was founded elsewhere. Kiev was burned to the ground in 1240 and 1482. Lviv was destroyed in 1250 and 1350, each time a new city was founded in a different place. Should there be a separate entry for each of these periods? Rather not. So merge is the only sensible solution. There is no reason for two separate articles about the same town.Marcelus (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Towns are not just building sites. They have their own culture. When there is little or no cultural continuity, there are indeed two towns, one historical, one current. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing that we should have a separate article about Pilau or Tilsit? The entire article should be moved to History of Kaliningrad Marcelus (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should Byzantium and Constantinople be merged into Istanbul? Should Batavia, Dutch East Indies be merged into Jakarta? Should New Amsterdam be merged into New York City? Neither of these places ever ceased to exist. —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * We should split long articles and not split short articles. —Kusma (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what you mean by “why split" but anyway. Let’s not waste more time here, if you want to maintain two separate article for the same bloody town then fine. Just keep in mind that this might be confusing for the readers and in my option it is totally wrong . Encyclopaedia Brittanica has one article about Kaliningrad --> as it should be, so all others, but for some completely illogical reason we must be different here :). - GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of the articles have fully functional hatnotes to prevent confusion. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it look like snow to you? It's snowing where I am! Skyerise (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still want to see some other opinions and argumentation of the closing person. This is not a vote count. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. No one has any sympathy for Russia right now. Your nomination was exceedingly tone-deaf in an environment of Russian expansionism. Skyerise (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that opposing comments here are based on the current political situation and not our fundamental editorial standards? Am I reading you correctly Skyerise? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I'm suggesting that you are wrong about what is actually correct here. A city is not simply a physical entity. It is also a cultural and political entity. The cultural and political entity called Königsberg came to an end when its most of its inhabitants were deported to Germany. Maybe you'd have been able to convince people to agree with your wrong conclusion in a different political environment, but in the current one I beleive it's a lost cause. Skyerise (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You began with no and ended up with yes
 * So if the political environment was different, the outcome might have been merged or deleted. Oh Gosh.. Skyerise... I believe we should not be impacted by politics but stick to our standards and continue constructing informative, neutral Encyclopedia  GizzyCatBella'''  🍁  19:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Our standards" include the splitting of long articles. It is actually recommended. Guidelines say that an article >100,000 bytes "almost certainly should be divided". Königsberg is currently at 73,738 and Kaliningrad is at 93,402. There is little duplication so a merged article would be ~160,000 bytes. It would immediately be proposed to split it. How would you suggest it be split? I believe the articles meet our standards, and so do nearly all the editors responding. On top of that, we don't start a merge discussion by nominating an article for deletion. We use merge tags and have the discussion on the talk pages of the articles involved. Why'd you nominate the article rather than doing that? Seems to me that's pretty POINTY. Skyerise (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking here about the actual merger of the both articles, we are talking about sensibility of keeping two articles about the same town. If the merged articles will have more than 100k then it will be split to subarticles like: "History of Kaliningrad" and so onMarcelus (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what's already been done. Neither the city nor the name Kaliningrad existed prior to 1946. Kaliningrad has no history prior to 1946, or rather, that history already has a proper name, and that name is 'Königsberg'. Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even Russian Wikipedia has two articles. You'd think if any Wikipedia had the motivation to make Königsberg "disappear", it'd be Russian Wikipedia! Skyerise (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants Königsberg to disappear Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep  This is a subordinate article to the main article Kaliningrad, in WP:summary style. If we merge them, the resulting article’s history section might be disproportionately long. We could rename this History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945, except the current title better fulfils the WP:CRITERIA. (The other article has a longer edit history, so if we choose to merge then we should keep that one.) —Michael Z. 19:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would not mind to see this article renamed to History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945. This is even better idea. Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:47, 17 March 2022 (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.

Alternative proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename this article to History of Kaliningrad 1255–1945 (per Michael)


 * Support - as nominator - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PS - Perhaps we could even do this History of Kaliningrad (Königsberg) 1255–1945, no? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * or this History of Königsberg (Kaliningrad) 1255–1945 also .... hmm. Let me folks know what you think about the above also.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: This really should not be discussed in this venue. Wait until the deletion discussion is closed, then open a move discussion. If you want to get right to it, you could withdraw your deletion nomination per WP:SNOW. Skyerise (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose any use of the word "Kaliningrad" in a context of pre-1945 history, as a historical anachronism. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per same argument as Ejgreen77. Skyerise (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)