Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic

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:

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.
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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board

Scan for Czech Republic related AfDs

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

Czech Republic

Günther Kletetschka

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

Lacks sufficient reliable sources discussing him in detail. Even the Boyce article is on phys.org which is a news aggregator. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Mathematics, Physics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. jolielover♥talk 16:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FRINGEBLP which does not rise to WP:NFRINGE levels. Also fails WP:NPROF. jps (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE is irrelevant as it is for evaluating notability of theories, not their proponents. Barack Obama may end up saying he's a Younger Dryas enthusiast, but in no universe would WP:NFRINGE apply to him. This is a pure easy WP:GNG matter. Let's not give FRINGE authority or precedent scope it is not entitled and never will enjoy. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:FRINGEBLP asks us explicitly to consider WP:NFRINGE when evaluating whether a person is notable for their fringe promotion. Sometimes they are. In this case, they are not expressly because the fringe theory they are promoting is not notable enough having received no WP:Independent source notice. jps (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the wording or any weight of FRINGEBLP doesn't (and cannot) supersede or set a higher standard than GNG. Kinda like how all state law/constitutions in the USA ultimately are subservient/inferior to the US constitution, is how I'd thought of it. So if a person meets GNG (by mosaic or SIGCOV, either counts) than they automatically count, regardless of any FRINGE* or other lessor page. That's all. It wasn't a knock, it was just to make clear for the readers at home that "fringe" people don't have a higher minimum notability standard than non-fringe people.

Like if all things were equal in volume, weight of coverage, etc., and I was GNG for being an academic and you were GNG for being a "ghost whisperer", it's the same GNG standard. SIGCOV (several) or enough weight of other stuff over time and not just BLP1E and you're good to go with GNG. It doesn't matter if it's for my obvious biochemical research or for your less-than-obvious undead pals that only you can see. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability on WP works. I know some people would like it if it worked that way, but it just doesn't. In AfD discussions, the discussants look at all the different ways to assess notability and then discuss based on those. jps (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is ok, but WP:GNG is the arbiter. FRINGE et al is subservient to it and always will be. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not the arbiter. It is practice that is the arbiter. Read WP:PAG. jps (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it with my !delete vote below and end saying you're mistaken still as we've discussed in the past, and while you're welcome to push this for cultural acceptance, deviation from WP:GNG to elevate FRINGE et al to more power is an ultra-minority position with no real power, authority or traction. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said nor ever desired to "elevate FRINGE". This is a strawman of your own invention. jps (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for basic apparent failure of WP:GNG alone. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)
Weak Delete. The current page is strange, and does a good job of indicating that he is not notable. A lot of negative material has been added if I compare this page to the earlier July 15th version. Some of this seems to be very inappropriate, marginal on WP:NPOV, and I will question why it was added.

Leaving that aside, if I ignore the negative additions I do not see a pass of WP:NPROF. He has an h-factor of 35 with 4.6K total citations, so he is not far off. I do not see anything for WP:GNG or similar. If there were some significant awards I would probably vote weak keep. If someone improves the page, removing inappropriate material then I might change my vote.Ldm1954 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of valid sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Setting aside the high-profile but low-impact archealogical and astrophysical speculation, his higher-cited work on planetary science has many coauthors; his first-author papers "Magnetic stratigraphy of Chinese loess", "Hematite vs. magnetite", "Grain size limit", etc., have 147, 98, 81, and fewer citations on Google Scholar, close but below the threshold for me. I don't think there has been enough popular press coverage of his other work to make a case for WP:GNG in place of WP:PROF.
Keep: Critiques of Günther Kletetschka and his work are evolving. To delete this article now would be a major mistake. This article provides a place where valid criticism and supporting evidence can be presented. Gunther may be another Newton or another Milli Vanilli. In either case, Günther is significant. Lets keep an open mind until we know all the facts. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lot more liberal than most people you're gonna see here on AfD, as far as my AfD standards. If you see me going straight !delete, it's probably not notable. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not influential enough in mainstream science for WP:PROF, and not noteworthy enough as a promoter of fringe ideas to be notable by that route either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VPP and WP:GNG. -Roxy the dog 17:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all very interesting, but not yet notable. My concerns about poorly sourced BLPs like this have come true. This lacks significant coverage in reliable sources about him. And of course, we have almost never kept an assistant professor's article. WP:DCOI: I have taught physics at a much lower level, and have written papers on a closely related topic. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe one day, but not today. WP:FRINGEBLP that is not presently notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kasparek

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

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, Military, Politics, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not WikiTree, and we do not host vanity articles for family members of editors. I agree with ToeSchmoker's assessment - like the other Kasparek, there is practically nothing here with the exception of Who's Who in Polish America, which is more than likely not GNG-worthy, and certainly cannot be the entire basis of an article. The remaining sources are Kasparek's own books and translations, without any actual coverage - not even a newspaper clipping to speak of. MediaKyle (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Burešová-Loukotová

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Her biggest achievement is 6th place at 1992 Summer Olympics in Women's quadruple sculls. She does not even have a page on cswiki. FromCzech (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's quadruple sculls, where her name is mentioned. Even if there was corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia, notability still might be concerns there too. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have two promising leads for in-depth newspaper coverage, but nothing solid yet. Reversing the order of her hyphenated name is getting more success. – Ike Lek (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Pekař

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

Contested redirect, without improvement. Zero in-depth sourcing, and searches did not turn up any, Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Mixed 50 metre rifle three positions. Fails WP:GNG, no sources founded. FromCzech (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Mixed 50 metre rifle three positions – Where he is mentioned. Svartner (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Mixed 50 metre rifle three positions, where his name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He receives significant coverage in "Zlatá kniha sportovní střelby" (ISBN 80-7181-908-5) and plenty of newspaper articles. – Ike Lek (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Zlatá kniha sportovní střelby" say? Geschichte (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting to receive a physical copy of the book through an interlibrary loan, but given he is mentioned on 11 different pages in body text (not just event listings), it is pretty clear to me that it is SIGCOV. I will give more details when I have more info than preview snippets to give. The coverage seems to be very much about his roles in the shooting federation he became president of, but I do not want to misrepresent it by making claims without full text access. Ike Lek (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Czech Republic

Contents

Czech Republic

Günther Kletetschka

Józef Kasparek

Michaela Burešová-Loukotová

Jaroslav Pekař

Others

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also