Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Czech Republic. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Czech Republic|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Czech Republic. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cachewatch
Scan for Czech Republic related AfDs

Scan for Czech Republic related Prods
Scan for Czech Republic related TfDs


Czech Republic

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic)

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD due to having incoming links. However, there is no evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Světec train crash

2021 Světec train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This article is about an event which appears not to have received any coverage beyond initial reporting on the day of, or after, the event four years ago. Although the content might be suitable for merging to the railway station page, there is no article there. C679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation is still under way.
https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-
https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are those two sources enough of a prove of continued coverage? There is not much else since there is no new information to cover. When the Rail Safety Inspection (Drážní inspekce) finishes their investigation and releases the report to public, there will be more sources talking about it. GoogolManiac (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Alliance of Independent Citizens

Liberal Alliance of Independent Citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD due to being a political party. However, such organisations still have to meet WP:ORG, and there is no evidence that this one does. C679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matěj Havran

Matěj Havran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Czech handball player (and casual MMA fighter?) does not currently meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages, routine match coverage and coverage on non-independent sites affiliated with Czech handball. A redirect from another editor was contested, so bringing this to AfD. As an alternative to deletion I propose to redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team until such time as he meets NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack

2017 Hurghada attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kubr

Lucas Kubr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested redirect without improvement. If WP:NFOOTY still applied, would meet that requirement, but searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, just stat pages. Onel5969 TT me 16:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Das osmnezz sources. I couldn't see the paywalled ones, but the rest seem satisfactory to me. Svartner (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy:, @Clariniie:, Idk how secondary coverage combined with interview would not count... using that black and white logic all newspaper/magazine interviews mixed with secondary coverage with anybody (like [7] or [8]) would not be counted towards anything... First source: ("Lucas Kubr is now showing it in Brno, where he found his first Czech contract at the age of 20 with second-league Zbrojovka. It came after a two-year stint in Norwegian Bodö/Glimt, for which he is grateful, but he did not want to be dragged off the substitutes' bench any longer... Both as a person and as a football player, Lucas Kubr grew up in the family of Prague native Martin Kubr in Belgium near Genk, in a region crazy about cycling... He didn't enjoy pedaling. But he was fascinated by football"), Second source: ("He is finally enjoying football again, and to a significant extent. Lucas Kubr desperately needed a lot of time on the pitch. After a season in which he played only a minimum of matches for the Norwegian team Bodo/Glimt, the left-back only welcomed the summer offer from Zbrojovka. He plays regularly for the Brno club, often in the starting lineup, and on Friday he even enjoyed his first goal in South Moravia against Slavia B. It was enough for a 1:1 draw. The 20-year-old player has mixed memories of his time at the elite Norwegian club. He gained valuable experience from an interesting destination, and at the beginning of last season it looked like he could make a significant impact. He started Bodo/Glimt's journey in the preliminary rounds of the European Conference League on the bench, from which he also watched the successful double match against Bohemians Prague, but that almost ended Kubra's anabasis in the first team. He only played in two cup matches, only collecting starts for the Norwegian club's reserve team. He welcomed his summer return to the Czech Republic, even though he is not currently experiencing many happy moments with Zbrojovka. The Brno team is still stuck in the relegation positions in the second league"), Third source just from the section without paywall: ("Grandma is from Palermo. Mom is Belgian, dad is from Prague, aunt is German. He was born near Genk, Belgium, and plays above the Arctic Circle in Norway... he rushed to Prague to visit his grandfather, who lives alone in a large house above Smíchov"), Fourth source: ("He lives an extraordinary life. With a Czech father, an Italian mother, a birthplace in Belgium, a current position in Norway beyond the Arctic Circle and a secret desire to become the new David Jurásek. Lucas Kubr (19), do you know him? The fast left-back from Bodo/Glimt was only recently discovered for domestic football by coach Radek Bejbl. The native of the Flemish city of Tongeren is an option for Jurásek's position in the newly formed U21 national team for Jan Suchopárek... Attention, a few days ago the youngster was close to being loaned out to the Czech league, according to iSport information specifically in České Budějovice. But the whole thing is said to have fallen through. It is still possible that the nice guy Lucas Kubr will arrive in the Czech Republic at the beginning of August with the Norwegian team for the rematch of the second preliminary round of the Conference League at Letná against Bohemians. Even if as a substitute"), and the fifth and sixth sources definitely have secondary coverage behind paywall. On top of this I can even find more sources and he will definiftely get more as his nascent pro and international career progresses. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The added sources are just match reporting and other primary reporting. For GNG we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. We don't have those. I am a little troubled by a !vote that says "AGF seemingly show notability". At AfD we need to be discussing and reading the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we need multiple secondary SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Even just one provided is still too weak to establish notability. By the way, did you mean passing mention in match reports? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. In answer to your question, it is passing anyway, but no - the problem is that even if you have a match report that has something that scrapes through SIGCOV by describing a good game that the player had, the account of the match is a primary source. Someone has watched the match and written down what they saw. The very definition of a primary source. Many people seem to assume that such accounts show notability (and such people have perhaps never !voted to delete an article in any AfD ever), but notability is shown when someone takes such accounts and writes a source that synthesises them to tell us something biographical of the player. For instance, if someone takes multiple accounts and describes how the player pioneered a new attack, or somesuch, then the synthesis and biographical account will be a secondary source demonstrating that the player is not just a player but a notable one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This report includes detailed analysis of his background and movement between Norway and the Czech Republic. This short article gives details on his personal background. This article is an extended profile. Easily satisfies GNG/BIO. Also there is simply no community consensus that match reports can per se be discounted as "primary"; it is simply not that binary. A match report can contain all sorts of information referencing past match histories, player interactions, differences between matches in a current season, coach/player styles, coach/player development etc. A match report which contains detailed analysis of a particular player's contribution could well count *towards* notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Match reports certainly are, prima facie the epitome of primary sources. They are an eyewitness report of a match. Your point, I think, is that even primary sources may contain information that may be considered secondary, depending on the question asked. An example from an unrelated area: a PhD thesis is a primary source, but a thesis studying a school might contain historical background of the school culled from other sources, and that background might be secondary. That does not make the thesis a secondary source. But when I said the sources were match reporting and other primary reporting, I did not assert a "binary" at all. I specifically said that what I read was primary reporting. So, let's look at these.
    • Your first example [9] is certainly match reporting from paragraph 4 onwards. Paragraph 1 is the writers introduction, includes a primary quote and a writers opinion "he enjoys football again". No secondary information. Paragraph 2 likewise. although "he gained valuable experience by..." is not about this match, it is the primary opinion of the writer, it is not a collation or analysis of any sources. Paragraph 3 likewise and has quotations from the subject, which are neither primary nor independent.
    • Your second [10] is, as you say, very short. It also is evidently written from an interview response. I don't see how that can tell us anything about notability.
    • I'll have to come back to source 3 and the four that Das osmnezz wants to discuss above as I am out of time. Potentially an extended profile is relevant, and is not just match reporting, but I'll note cautions that (1) it contains interview material - which does not preclude it being good, but must be considered appropriately per WP:IV (2) independence needs to be considered. What is the occasion of the document? (3) we need multiple sources.
    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like discussion is still ongoing here, Sirfurboy has at least indicated that they intend to return
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "a PhD thesis is a primary source" - that statement does not reflect community consensus; WP:SCHOLARSHIP:as they are often, in part, primary sources. (my emphasis) In other words, not always and if so, partially. Thus, case by case analysis is required, which is my point above about match reports. Unfortunately, this is again a demonstration of turning elements of our guidelines into binary black and white frameworks. It denies that our guidelines are designed to have flexibility and not be absolute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How you can read what I said and think I am asserting a "binary black and white" framework, when I very specifically made the point to say the opposite, is beyond me. I literally made the point that the research is a primary source for the research/thesis being defended, but contains secondary information if the question asked of the source is different. But if you think that an eye witness match report is not prima facie a primary source, then you have some more reading to do. If someone watches a match and writes about the match, then what they are writing is an eye witness account. Now to the sources I said I'd come back to, I'll look at Das osmnezz's 4 first, and then at the third of yours that I ran out of time for.
    • First source: [11] This whole source is an interview. See WP:IVa person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. In particular, all statements an interviewee makes about themself in an interview are primary, and cannot be used towards GNG. This includes the interviewer's summary of their response as you have quoted here. Red XN
    • Second source: [12] This is a match report, a primary source. You argue that, nevertheless, there is secondary information, such as "He is finally enjoying football again." While it is true that this is not exactly a description of his performance on the field, what it is is an opinion of the person watching. That person is presenting the match report, and their opinion that he is enjoying football again, is the eyewitnesses opinion. This is still primary. It is the primary opinion of the reporter. It is not a synthesis or analysis of primary sources. It is their opinion based on what they saw. As a matter of historiography, this is all a primary source. It tells us about his performance in the match, it does not tell us about the notability of the subject. Red XN
    • Third Source: [13] - Again an interview. Now you pick up the statement "Grandma is from Palermo..." etc. These are statements of fact that can be safely used in an article, but it is clear that this was not researched by the interviewer from some primary source. The interviewer has asked the interviewee a question, and he said, in the course of his answer, that his grandma came from Palermo etc. The statement is reported as a fact, but the information has come directly from the subject during the interview. It is primary. It is probably reliable enough, but it tells us nothing about notability, as per WP:IV and P&G Red XN
    • Fourth Source: [14] - This is another interview and also cannot be used to establish notability. Red XN
    • "This article" source (the one I said I'd come back to): [15] This one has a write up about an upcoming match. The first thing to note is that the quotations from Kubr are primary regarding Kubr. That is, if he talks about himself, the information is primary. Halfway down the article, however, we get a little biographical detail - his Belgian/Czech story. This information clearly comes from him, but the occasion is what is important. Why are we getting his profile? The answer is simply that he is a new signing, about to get a start. It is a news story, but I do not believe this demonstrates notability. News reporting is primary, and although the background goes beyond the main news interest, the information presented has clearly been obtained from the subject themself in the course of an interview for the news story. I will, however, mark it as a Question? because others might wish to make a case for it. That case would need to take the occasioning of the article seriously. If one were inclined to accept it, however, this would still be the only source we have. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, so we are still short of GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)
    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as I have said before this is black and white thinking since this logic means that a ton of mixed interview and secondary reporting profile pieces for magazines websites and newspapers cannot contribute to Wikipedia biographies' notability which is absurd. Also secondary reporting alongside an interview somehow dosnt count but if another source uses said interview as a source it does count? Make that make sense... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is source analysis. If information comes from the horse's mouth, it is not independent of the horse. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12 and 15 look in my view, while 13 is partially paywalled. Yeah, I understand that IR SIGCOV might be sometimes difficult to find... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Czech_Republic&oldid=1289519191"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.