Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Slovakia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FOARP (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 25 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karel Pacák.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Slovakia. 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|Slovakia|~~~~}} 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 Slovakia. 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 cache watch
Scan for Slovakia related AfDs

Scan for Slovakia related Prods
Scan for Slovakia related TfDs


Slovakia

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 Czechoslovakia at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Athletics. asilvering (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Pacák

Karel Pacák (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)

LUGSTUB de-prodded by Habst. The issue here is every single source is a bare database listing (all of which are ultimately the same source referencing the same data) or the Czech Athletics association - no independent, reliable source providing significant biographical coverage of the subject of the article has been provided of the kind needed for an WP:NSPORTS pass.

Searching online I see many references to the prominent Czech doctor after whom Pacak–Zhuang syndrome is named, but nothing about this runner beyond the usual mirrors and databases. We cannot simply assume that coverage exists based on them having been an Olympian - that was a position completely deprecated by WP:NSPORTS2022.

I mean come on guys, even the death-date for this guy is unknown. It's assumed that he died in Germany but even this actually isn't known because his death-date isn't known (and so it shouldn't say this). Considering the history of the period, stating that this man "later moved to Germany" could be extremely inaccurate, but is a symptom of the degree to which the sources have been over-interpreted to produce this article. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed the bit that said he later "moved to Germany", which appears to be conjecture. Olympedia states with no certainty that he may have "Died in ? (GER)"; it says nothing about his having "moved" there. If in fact he died there, he may just as likely have been there temporarily, e.g., as a forced laborer under the Nazi regime or as a soldier during WWII. There is simply no source saying he later "moved to Germany". Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cbl62, thank you for spotting this, by "moved" I just meant "physically moved" but I see how this could be confusing and not usually how people use that word. I reworded it to just say that he died in Germany without implying that he ever lived there for any period of time. --Habst (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, the question mark "?" in Olympedia doesn't imply uncertainty in this case, it just means that the city is unknown (because that's where the city would normally go) and is a technical artifact inserted by their system. --Habst (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With Czechoslovakia dissolving into multiple countries plus him being born in a nation that also dissolved, I think a proper search on this guy is going to be require looking in a lot of different languages. I think any kind of deletion of this article should require a little extra care since there's so many problems that one could run into. I don't think not knowing more details about his death disgraces the article. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have been great if that search had been done before this article was created, rather than now absorbing hours of editor time in total in a search for them when in all likelihood they don't exist. The lack of any death-date makes it even more likely than usual that no SIGCOV exists for this, since it means it's quite likely that no obituaries were written. I would say that this article was disgraced by stating that a Czech who possibly died in Germany during this period necessarily moved there voluntarily, though this statement has now been removed. FOARP (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Per above, I don't think we have any indication of uncertainty about the country of death, the question mark in Bill Mallon's work is only a technical artifact inserted by the system and it doesn't mean that the country of death is disputed or uncertain. I rephrased that part to be as clear as possible without implying that he lived in Germany for any period of time, and I agree that using the word "move" was misleading. --Habst (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d also question the statement that they died in Germany when neither the date nor the place are known. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP, I think it's fine to question but I don't see any basis for doubting Olympedia which is considered a WP:RS on Wikipedia in this case. There are lots of people where the place of death is known but not the date; for example you could do a PetScan with positive Category:Date of death missing and negative Category:Place of death missing. --Habst (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ”Olympedia which is considered an RS” - I am not aware of any RSN discussion saying so, and if one were to be started now, I doubt it would deliver a total endorsement. FOARP (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Olympedia has been discussed on RSN before and its status as an RS has only been affirmed, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#Olympedia and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_361#Olympedia. The board at WP:RSP is only for sources that are frequently challenged, and despite being used a lot Olympedia is rarely challenged. --Habst (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in those discussion was anything about anything “affirmed”? FOARP (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting the first discussion, "Seems like they have editorial control and take feedback, so those are good signs" and "it has a list of editors which asserts that they are all experts in the field". In order for a source to be listed at RSP, it generally needs to be challenged by at least one person first. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of these statements are conclusive of anything. You are welcome to start an RSN discussion on this source if you like. FOARP (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The other relevant factor is that Olympedia is a collaboration with Olympics.org and thus not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is no longer true as of 2024. --Habst (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't think Bill Mallon working for the IOC per his biography impacts his independence? FOARP (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely impacts his independence with respect to the IOC, but not with respect to the tens of thousands of athletes that have ever competed at the Olympics, especially Pacak who likely died before Mallon was born. --Habst (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The man mentioned in the nomination is found here, needs considerable trimming. Geschichte (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were they the same men? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the doctor is still alive AFAIK, whilst the athlete who is the subject of this article probably died in WW2. FOARP (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Habst (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't have any independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. Does not meet GMG, WP:BASIC nor any other guideline. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The required citation to a SIGCOV source has not been supplied, therefore per global consensus this article cannot remain in mainspace. Exhaustive searches of contemporary news are not obligated by BEFORE, and would not be warranted anyway because we cannot use his participation in the Olympics to presume coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Athletics where his name is mentioned. Apparently, the Czech Wikipedia article is an unsourced dumping ground about a footballer with the same name. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I expanded the article just before it was nominated. Subject was a national champion runner fulfilling WP:NATH, and we can expect individual coverage of him would exist in Czech newspapers from the 1920s which have not been checked by any AfD participant yet. Per WP:NEXIST, just because we don't have access to these papers online doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered in discussions. It's not at all inconceivable that these archives may open up to us in the near future or that a Czech Wikipedian that actually understands the source language could uncover more SIGCOV sourcing. --Habst (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the 1 millionth time, and this is seriously becoming a behavioural issue, WP:NEXIST means you have to show that sourcing actually exists, not just assert that it does. WP:NATH#4 also requires them to have been high in a ranking system that didn’t exist at the time this guy was competing - not enough just to have been a national champion. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP, I have great respect for your contributions and I agree that we have to demonstrate sourcing exists and just claiming it should isn't enough. I think NATH#4 would apply because Pacak's 35:03.2 10K was one of the top 60 times in the world in 1920 -- he was ranked in the top 30 at the Olympics that year.
    Pacak was an accomplished international athlete that we know would have been covered in Czech sources. If we have a note saying, "Karel Pacak had a biography", then of course that would be suitable for NEXIST. I don't see how it's any different to say that we have accomplishments as reported in RS saying, "Karel Pacak did these things that were of note". If someone can get access to Czech dailies from the 1920s and demonstrate that a search for Pacak turns up nothing, I will happily strike my !vote because that means at least we checked.
    I spend the vast majority of my editing time improving articles and not at AfD, but the recent uptick in these nominations has been controversial to say the least. We are both acting in good faith so I don't see the issue with pointing out that relevant archives have not been searched for notable subjects. --Habst (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say you respect contributions, but you keep trying the same argument. Why would we expect that Czech daily newspapers from the 1920s would contain secondary sources? This is what you are not getting. These newspaper sources are going to be primary sources. If you were a historian, writing about this subject, you are quite right that this is exactly the cache of information you require (one of them). You might have to spend time visiting actual physical archives, poring through the primary sources, perhaps reading microfiche or looking at undigitised collections (which are also often poorly categorised), to find the information for your project. It is a time consuming and painstaking process, but a valuable one. However we are not historians, writing histories. We are encyclopaedia writers, writing encyclopaedia entries. That means we use the histories others have written. We write the tertiary source from the secondary sources. That is by policy and by design. If no one has written the secondary sources, then the subject is not notable for an encyclopaedic article, and this is the wrong wiki project to be trying to write these articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that is not completly true, when newspapers are reflecting or giving an analysis about someone, mentioning historic aspects of the subject these newspaper articles are secondary sources. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which says: "Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material". In this case, any newspaper analyzing race results (primary material) would of course be classified as a secondary source. I agree that just listing race results would not be secondary, but this is never the type of coverage we're seeking in AfDs. --Habst (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are sounding like someone who has never visited an archive and sorted through mountains of hundred year old news articles. If you had, your strong expectation would surely be that these are almost always primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have sorted through physical newspaper archives before as well as thousands of online archives – see my 900+ online newspaper clippings. I understand the difference between primary and secondary coverage and agree with Yale University's guide and WP:PRIMARYNEWS that news coverage is secondary when it interprets primary source material. I have a lot of respect for you and I don't understand why your argument has to be personal about me instead of based on the merits. --Habst (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy: Please avoid making it personal. But I did a lot of archive work, and can say there are many valuable non-primary source articles in (old) newspapers. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that just listing race results would not be secondary, but this is never the type of coverage we're seeking in AfDs. Good to know you're committed to not linking precisely that kind of coverage anymore! JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NATH is subordinate to the requirements of SPORTSCRIT, so even if the subject did meet NATH (which he cannot), an IRS SIGCOV source is still required for the article to be in mainspace. We've been over this. JoelleJay (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1920 Summer Olympics#Athletics : Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Like others have noted, participation in the Olympics no longer grants inherent notability. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (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.
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. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kochanová

Monika Kochanová (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)

Unable to uncover significant coverage of this individual from multiple independent sources. Results from searches generally yield results with little to no more detail than a name, such as [1] and [2]. C679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (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.

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/Slovakia&oldid=1287298701"