Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Za svobodu národa

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. Nomination effectively withdrawn as the nominator asked for a snow close. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Za svobodu národa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable film, no assertion of notability, only a source showing that it exists. PROD denied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sufficient hits in the Czech film sites and books and was directed by a notable director and stars a notable actress who married a notable director. It's a 1920 Czech silent film, most sources would be in sources offine. Films don't need to proclaim "I am important because" no more than you Koavf need to go around proclaiming that you have a high edit count to be thought of as a worthy editor.† Encyclopædius 11:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædius, Refrain from irrelevant personal attacks and please show that you comprehend that notability is not inherited (and it certainly isn't inherited from someone who doesn't have an article). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack?? I'm drawing a comparison to illustrate that you don't need to explain why a film is notable. No, notability is indicated by coverage in sources, which if you'd bothered to check before prodding and AFDing this you'd have realised it's notable. You made a poor error of judgement on this Justin.† Encyclopædius 08:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyclopædius: "What personal attack??" If you sincerely don't understand that your lies about how I "go about proclaiming that I have a high edit count to be thought of as a worthy editor" are a personal attack, then there is something wrong with you as an editor. Please either retract or substantiate your lie. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources are given to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A notable film with very interesting history, see G-books search result - a real blockbuster in the European context of the 1920s. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase "no assertion of notability" is not a basis for nominating an article for deletion. It no more belongs in a deletion rationale (either PROD or AFD) than does "Spelling mistakes". The content and sources now in the article demonstrate its notability. Its notability established, that means it was notable at the time it was proposed for deletion and then nominated for deletion through this discussion. Largoplazo (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo, See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion #8. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Why are you drawing my attention to a provision stating that its subject's lack of notability is grounds for deleting an article (as though I'd been unaware of that) in response to my pointing out that a lack of an assertion of notability in the article is not grounds for deletion? Largoplazo (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, If an article does not in any way display that it's notable, then it lacks notability. E.g. Encyclopædius hilariously misconstrued what I wrote on his talk page as "that a very experienced Wikipedia editor thinks For the Freedom of the Nation isn't notable" but I never wrote that. I just suggested that the article needs to prove that it's notable. I didn't say that this topic isn't, just that the article didn't show that it was. And the article at the time didn't, plus its title was in another language and I couldn't hardly verify any sources since they were in Czech. Articles need to obviously demonstrate notability and we have editors here saying, "This is notable because the director is notable" which is not true and also not at all evident when the director is a redlink. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf "If an article does not in any way display that it's notable, then it lacks notability" is a false statement in contradiction of the notability guidelines. See WP:ARTN, and, for the sake of it WP:NEXIST. Notability is a property of a subject, independent of what is or isn't in an article about it or whether anyone has even written an article about it yet. Also, see point B2 at WP:BEFORE. While the failure of an article to make its subject's notability clear may trigger an editor's sense that it isn't notable, that sense is required to lead the editor to investigate the subject's notability and nominate it for deletion only if the finding from that investigation is an unlikelihood of notability or an inability to establish it. It may not lead directly to a deletion nomination. Largoplazo (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, We operate on a principle of verifiability, not truth. I'm not stating that the topic isn't notable but that it's not verifiable that it's notable since there's no claim to make and source to follow to substantiate that claim. Since a comprehensive encyclopedia would have about 100 million articles and we have 6 million, I'm sure that many notable topics are not included here that could or should be but the onus is on the person who adds a new article to show that it's notable and provide sources. The author of this had over a decade to show that and never did. The burden of proof is on him to substantiate this article, not me. Additionally, searching for a source in another language imposes some challenges that make it hard for me as a non-Czech-, non-Slavic language-literate person to do any research or verify anything about this topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf No. I can't believe how many different things you're managing to conflate. WP:V is about factuality versus verifiability of information. WP:N is about notability. Verifiability is also not about what's in the article but about what's available from sources, so even if we were talking about verifiability and not notability, you would still be wrong to nominate an article for deletion based on the shortcomings in the article without checking first whether the information can be verified externally (other than for the special rules that apply to WP:BLPs).

But we aren't talking about verifiability, we're talking about notability, based on your "no assertion of notability" rationale for deletion. This thing you've just come up with, "verifiability of notability", is your own invention, not found anywhere. Read everything both you and I have already pointed to again, and then read WP:OVERCOME. These make it crystal clear that an article cannot be deleted on notability grounds based on what is or isn't in the article. Stop making up your own rules, and start practicing WP:BEFORE every single time you consider posting either a PROD or AFD tag on an article.

If you insist on looking at it in terms of "verifying notability" or lack thereof, the outpouring of activity on the article and of comments here demonstrate soundly that notability was verifiable. It was your responsibility under WP:BEFORE to do an investigation of this nature of your own before nominating the article for deletion. If you don't practice WP:BEFORE as required, then you're in violation of the guidelines for the deletion procedure. Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion #8: articles that aren't notable are eligible for deletion. It's not up to me to look up a foreign language term in foreign language sources to try to show somehow that a stub with no sources is notable (especially since the author of this stub made hundreds or thousands of such unsourced stubs and has explicitly said that he will not expand or redirect them, leaving it up to everyone else to fix his mistakes). If I removed all of the unsourced statements from these articles (which is exactly what I should do), then it would be the burden of whomever readds that information to prove it, not me. The article as I found it was made up of completely unsourced claims that didn't assert or prove any notability, so I had every right and obligation to remove everything in the article and then there is no obvious place to redirect it as the director is a redlink. I'm not going to be responsible for proving everyone else's hoaxes, gossip, etc. on an encyclopedia of millions of articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf It is up to you. WP:BEFORE says it's up to you. Everything the guidelines say is up to you is up to you. Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence, beginning "It's not up to me to ..." does not following from that. Not a single one of the guidelines either you or I have pointed to support supports it, and they either say or imply the opposite. It's now time for you to read WP:IDHT. If you don't feel like following WP:BEFORE, then refrain from nominating articles for deletion. What isn't up to you is to make up your own rules. Largoplazo (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo, So I remove all unsourced statements (as I should), have no target for redirecting, and then I'm supposed to leave an empty article that has no content? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: What are you all arguing about, at this point? The sources have shown that the topic is notable. The article is much improved since the nomination. Everybody wins. Shouldn't we close this discussion down, declare victory and move on with our lives? — Toughpigs (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, This should be closed per WP:SNOW. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, I think that would be nice. If you write at the top that you withdraw the nomination and strike out your original rationale, then it'll be closed soon. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs, I would. I was hoping that Encyclopædius would retract his bad faith lies from the top but he seems unmotivated. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I just suggested that the article needs to prove that it's notable. I didn't say that this topic isn't," - if you're not claiming this article isn't non notable why on earth are you trying to delete it at AFD?? We don't try to delete notable articles, we work together to improve them. Prod and AFD are not meant to be an article improvement demand service. I'm tired of people abusing the prod and AFD process because they're too lazy to expand articles themselves.† Encyclopædius 08:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A truly comprehensive Wikipedia would have well over 1 billion articles, 105 million is an extremely conservative estimate.† Encyclopædius 06:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopædius, I don't know why you insists on deliberately mis-indenting your comments or why you insist on posting unsubstantiated asides but if you could answer the question that I asked you above and retract your lie, that would be appreciated. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's 1920 Czechoslovakia, there's thousands of missing notable articles still, anybody creating articles and finding a sea of red links knows what I mean. We're missing very mainstream directors, actors and films from such areas and periods still, that an article is a red link is a very poor way of judging notability, it just indicates that it's a topic which doesn't have the editorial interest we need on here.† Encyclopædius 08:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The existing sources demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per books on Google Books[1], Nominator obviously didn't follow BEFORE, Clearly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an excellent expansion of an article on a notable historic film. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (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.