Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech Wikipedia

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 keep. Punkmorten 08:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czech Wikipedia

The original research. No independent sources. Zorro CX 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep OMG there‘s no original research, read Chronicle of Czech Wikipedia. Petr K 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    What else this Chronicle is? The independent source? No, the original research by wikipedians about the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Well, where would you search for the “original” sources then? In talk pages, which are hundreds KB's long? There were some flame or edit wars, I remember the article about term cs:KSČSSD, coz' I participated in it. The information about the ex-bureaucrat isn't really written exactly as it was. He had been really good for the project from the beginning, but he changed and did unpleasant things, so that he lose his status and arbitration and was then banned. For these I've added the links yet.
    Please, read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SELF. Your task is to find some reputable (no blogs) independent sources, that means outside the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Czech Wikipedia by itself _is_ a valid reference, as any other website); it is not OR. Or delete English Wikipedia too, it has no external references. googl t 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Good idea. -- Zorro CX 16:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:WEB, e.g. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --W.marsh 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    That's really bad reason for deleting entry about wikipedia, coz' many sites has refered about it (above all English version, of course). Petr K 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    The English version has nothing to do with this non-notable subject, without a single independent resource. Almost no site refers about describes the Czech Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 19:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC), Zorro CX 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Without condoning "Zorro CX"'s other statements, yeah the above basically describes my stance. If there's not meaningful information to use in a proper article, we shouldn't include that article. All I'm asking for are sources. --W.marsh 19:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this AfD is useless. Timichal 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Why? Do you have any argument? -- Zorro CX 19:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for Timichal and hands off our czech brothers! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Articles are no place for the solidarity which would be irresponsible behaviour. Is it the breach of WP:NOR or it is not? If not, why? -- Zorro CX 19:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are statements which need sourcing, but they're no worse than those in German Wikipedia regarding "ways in which the German Wikipedia differs from the English version," some of which are entirely subjective. Even if these statements offend you, surely they could be removed and the statistical information left alone, since it is indisputably factual and fully documented at stats.wikimedia.org, and is fully in keeping with articles describing other minor (ie. sub-50,000 articles) Wikipediae such as Catalan Wikipedia, Arabic Wikipedia and Bosnian Wikipedia.
    The only useful information is statistics, which can be referred by the article Wikipedia directly. -- Zorro CX 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Either all must be deleted, or none, and it seems insane that Wikipedia should not document itself. Chris Smowton 21:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view, WP:SELF prevails. Wikipedia should only report what others write about it – exactly the same as in normal articles. This is the encyclopedia, no Village Pump. -- Zorro CX 21:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean a different guideline? SELF is just a manual of style guideline relating to avoiding writing with the assumption that the text is being viewed on Wikipedia, or indeed anywhere on the internet. The article actually follows it fairly well, in that the text would make sense in any context.
AFAIK there is no especial guideline covering self-documentation in this sense, since the issue only ever arises in non-namespace pages relating to Wikipedia itself. Therefore we should stick by a combination of the core principles (eg. write from an NPOV and so forth) and the exercise of a healthy dose of common sense -- WP:WEB and WP:ORG are designed to stop trivial websites and organisations respectively from using Wikipedia as cheap advertising space, which is clearly not what's happening heere, and WP:V and RS are intended to prevent conjecture and opinion from being presented as fact, which again isn't happening, though certainly a link to the Bureaucrat's ban log would be handy as a source for the relevant comment. Chris Smowton 01:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant exactly this guideline. If I, for instance, create my user's page at Wikipedia, is this a source for an encyclopedic article? Obviously, it is not. And the same goes for language versions of the Wikipedia. There can be a lot of useful information in other namespaces. But these are auxiliary. The main namespace is something very different. It is the encyclopedia.
Well no, of course not, but I can't see why we would need your user page (or anybody else's) as a source here. The article makes a few assertions:
1) Czech Wikipedia exists. Of this we're quite sure, a source isn't needed.
I agree, the only problem is whether its existence is notable. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
2) Czech WP had N users as of Y. Source: stats.wikimedia.org. Whilst this might count as self-citing, it's the only reasonable source for such information, so employ common sense and ignore the rule for this special case.
I may agree, but this source cannot be verified. Only facts (not truth) which are verifiable can be inserted into the Wikipedia. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
3) Czech WP commonly features arguments about topic X. Somewhat woolly and hard to source per se, but again since it's a harmless observation about the internal culture, don't worry about it unless it is disputed by another CZWP user.
Andy what about this another CZWP user? Can he or she insert his or her original research into the article? -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
4) Czech WP banned a Bureaucrat in July. The only logical source is the cz block log. Whilst it counts technically as self-reference, again this is the only reasonable source and verifies it as unquestionably factual. It's also used elsewhere in Wikipedia; for example the article on Jimbo Wales links to diffs to show some of his edits.
This fact is of defamation nature and shall be removed on sight. Our privacy policy does not allow to publish slanders. Jimbo Wales repeatedly removed some slanders about him[1], [2] and untrue claims[3]. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In summary, I think you should pay more attention to the spirit of the rules and less to dogma. 83.67.4.159 09:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree. The spirit is: No original research. Whether there are some third party reviews, the Wikipedia can inform about them. Not let Wikipedians write about themselves. -- Zorro CX 11:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do you get an NPOV, when there is only one POV so far? You need sources, you have not them. Reason? Non-notability of the subject, this is clear. Compare this situation with the Wikipedia. A lot of independent sources = a lot of good material to write about.
How do you know that the Czech Wikipedia is not trivial? About a dozen of articles in Czech (most mixed the Wikipedia in general) and only one in English. Should the English encyclopedia have an article about every in Czech context notable website, like Neviditelný pes, Britské listy, Živě, or Root?
"a link to the Bureaucrat's ban log would be handy as a source for the relevant comment." This is anti-Bureaucrat POV. What about the Bureaucrat POV? -- Zorro CX 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This debated has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic. Yamaguchi先生 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Wikipedia project passes WP:WEB and WP:ORG as well as WP:V and WP:RS. Czech Wikipedia is an unique offshot of the Wikipedia Project. It has been referred to in The Atlantic Monthly coverage of Wikipedia(see chart) and other articles which talk about Wikipedia's spread beyond English, and I'm sure the Czech media has referred to it. Article is fine except for controversies section which needs cleaning up. Nuisance smartass afd nom.Bwithh 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    The only one isolated table is not enough for the whole article and marginal remarks about other editions as well. These remarks have been already covered by the article Wikipedia. WP:WEB – not passed, no independent source. WP:ORG – not passed, there is no such a Czech organization, WP:V – not passed, not a single English text about the Czech Wikepedia, and WP:RS – not passed, no independent source. There is almost none Czech text about the Czech Wikepedia, and even it would be, this is the English Wikipedia and it would have no meaning for it. -- Zorro CX 21:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh Gawd. Okay here you go, here are some Czech sources:

Can you read Czech? You said you do not, because otherwise you wouldn't cite them. Anyway, what about WP:V? How can others verify what is written there when there is no English? -- Zorro CX 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But OK, let's go through:

ad 1. An interview with non-notable Petr Kadlec and, obviously, a Wikipedian. This constitues a bias. Would you mind an interview with myself as a source for the Wikipedia article? -- Zorro CX 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ad 2. The article is almost only about the Wikipedia itself. The Czech Wikipedia is mentioned only in just two statements: "Jenže pak jsem se dostal na stránky české wikipedie, kde je mj. k dnešnímu dni přes 18 300 článků ..." (= statistics) and "Místo pro setkávání našich wikipedistů se nazývá Pod lípou neboli Česká hospoda." (= There is a Village Pump.) Nothing else at all. The base for the encyclopedic article? I am sorry, but my demands are higher.

ad 3. Again about the Wikipedia as a such (I never propose to delete the article about the Wikipedia). "Česká verze Wikipedie (přístupná též z adresy www.wikipedia.cz ) má na začátku roku 2006 článků přes 22 tisíc." (= statistics) "Na české Wikipedii můžete vyzkoušet, jaké to je, stát se wikipedistou a podílet se na psaní encyklopedie. Můžete se také podívat na články nominované na nejlepší články české Wikipedie . A pokud by vás zajímalo, co že editory motivuje k jejich mravenčí práci při kontrole vkládaných informací, můžete se podívat do Kabinetu kuriozit , kde se dočtete (vesměs promptně odstraněné) perličky anonymních „wikipedistů.“" (= P. R., verbis expressis: "On the Czech Wikipedia you can try how to become a Wikipedian and to participate on writing the encyclopedia. You can look at the nominated featured articles of the Czech Wikipedia. And if you wonder by what motives the editors to their ant-like work with checking inserted information, you can look at the Cabinet of Rarities where the pearls of anonymous "Wikipedians" (mostly promptly deleted) are preserved.") And nothing else. I still wait for your sources. -- Zorro CX 23:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I have to say this is the most bizarrely obstinate work-to-rule afd I've ever been in. Okay: 1) I doubt that you would be invited to get an interview / profile about whatever you do on Radio Prague. The interview I referenced is about Wikipedia, not an individual Wikipedian; and its conducted by professional journalists in the employ of a major Czech broadcaster. The journalist conducting the interview even asks some difficult questions about Wikipedia 2) and 3) These articles prove that Czech Wikipedia exists and are notable for the Czech audience when talking about the broader discussion of Wikipedia. And finally, are you still denying that Czech Wikipedia falls under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation? Are you saying that the Wikimedia Foundation's operations in CZ fails WP:ORG? Bwithh 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Your doubts were baseless, that's what I can say. Concerning the English interview, most of its content is about the Wikipedia. But the Wikipedia has already had the article, so does Wikimedia Foundation and no one doubts it. I only doubt notability and verifialibity of the subject which is so far described in one and only English article. It presents one POV, what about the others? There's a lot of subjects which are relevant to Czech audience, but not to English speaking people. -- Zorro CX 08:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep while the article itself might need to be fixed up, an English-language description of the various Wikipedias in other languages (such as Czech) is both notable, and useful. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    It may be notable, but where are reputable sources? Where is published independent research in English? Dare you say? -- Zorro CX 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I would assume that would be provided by Bilingual Wikipedians, though some of the information might be derivable from the WikiPedia Admin side (I'm thinking the date of creation, number of articles, etc.). FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      But this is the English speaking Wikipedia. Every Wikipedian has a right to verify its content. In case of foreign language texts, he or she cannot. I refer to the debate about Israeli sources in en:. -- Zorro CX 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      WP:RS#Sources in languages other than English: “However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.“ --Mormegil 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      OK, but the conditions are very strict: "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." That means only direct citations (subsequently translated) are permitted. -- Zorro CX 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      No, it does not. --Mormegil 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      How comes? "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original" -- Zorro CX 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original", only "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source". There is no permition or restriction, when editors do NOT use their own English translation, is it? --Li-sung 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      Yeah, you are correct. -- Zorro CX 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sigh, do you not trust that Wikipedia's administration is capable of knowing how many articles were in its database for the Czech language, or even when the fork was created? I am a little baffled by your zealotry. It'd be one thing to object to some of the content, but to the article as a whole? FrozenPurpleCube 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        I am not objecting statistics, of course. But is the information about how much registered accounts (not users, obviously), how much pages (not articles, obviously) so important that it deserves its own article in the encyclopedia? I may be a zealot, but this is a question of principle. If it is so needy to have information about creating each language version, why not include it into the article Wikipedia? -- Zorro CX 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Read WP:AUTO: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source. This means that Wikipedia should not contain any "new" information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable." Most authors of the disputed article wrote about themselves. -- Zorro CX 09:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll remove all the nonsense added by ZorroCX (is that you VZ?). This nomination is clearly made in bad faith in attempt to wage a proxy war here. Czech Wikipedia was plagued with very long conflict but managed to close it. I very much dislike several attempts to confinue the conflict here and on Meta. Pavel Vozenilek 14:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I corrected the article to my best knowledge.
Short background: Czech Wiki suffered from a long conflict that escalated into wheel wars, edit wars, flame wars, numerous blocks, using sockpuppets, exposing personal details ["is that you VZ?", inserted by Zorro CX], labeling people as Hitlers, fascists or communists, questioning their motives and intelligence or associating them with former secret police. The attacks were made on Czech Wikipedia as well as on external website. Several people left or gave up admin positions. The situation was mostly solved by an arbitrage in May 2006. IMO this conflict was so long and so heavy that it is worth to be mentioned in the article. Pavel Vozenilek 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Mind the WP:CIV. I am not the one who insert nonsense.
I removed your breach of privacy as Jimbo Wales did.[4]. Mr Voženílek is one of the Czech Wikipedians. You should not write about yourself – mind WP:AUTO.
Your unsourced doubtless claims were notified by the appropriate template.
This article is no battle ground for another dirty war. Either Czech Wikipedia deserves its own article with no original research and no people writing about themselves, or not. In my view the article Czech Wikipedia would be appropriate only in the case if both conditions would be fullfilled. -- Zorro CX 16:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Zorro CX is a single purpose account[5] Bwithh 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    Assuming bad faith? I ask for your civility.[6] -- Zorro CX 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Absolutely does not hurt to have articles of Wikipedias that appear on the en.wiki front page (i.e., have over 10,000 articles). Moreso if it's in the 25,000 or more category. That's a relatively small group of Wikipedias, after all. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    This is no reaction to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SELF, and WP:AUTO. Main namespace is no Village Pump. -- Zorro CX 16:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    And? Deletion debate is all about determining notability and how remarkable the site is - whether a separate article is warranted, or do we need to merge the contents somewhere else, or consider if the content is too unremarkable to even mention anywhere. This particular Wikipedia satisfies this with its scope. Lack of verifiability or reliable sources is a cleanup issue, not AfD issue. WikiMedia projects are are to extent handled with a little bit silkier gloves than the rest of the websites, but there's always extents to that (see how MediaZilla is, rightfully, being AfD'd right now). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    OK. But what about possible (future) verifiability? There is a lack of any idependent research. All the articles about the Czech Wikipedia rely on statistics and trivialities. In my POV, the article Wikipedia is fully satisfactory for the whole project. Do we need an article about the Village Pump? The talk pages? In my view this is an encyclopedia, not the community web log. We should really not write about ourselves.
    And what about notability? Is Latin Wikipedia notable? Why not? Is any Wikipedia full of stubs notable? Does really any Czech use the Czech Wikipedia for his or her work? Speaking for myself, I don't. -- Zorro CX 16:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The encyclopedic article should not be mere a copy of Meta. -- Zorro CX 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the comments above, the deletion of this article will not improve Wikipedia (WP:IAR). Yamaguchi先生 21:33, 24 September 2006 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    Why does this article need a special treatment? Why is the original research allowed? Any reasons? -- Zorro CX 16:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just another Wikicruft. Only Template:Wikipedia editions, some user pages and other name spaces link there. -- Zorro CX 16:53, 25 September 2006 (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.