Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonín Koláček


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Antonín Koláček

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN businessperson with a bio focused on suspicions of something or another - not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. Many of them are as deeply flawed as this one. As is apparently the case with this nom, any sources not in English are ignored as if they are not in the articles at all, but even with machine translation (my conversational Czech is limited) it's obvious that some of these news sources -- already listed at the time of the AfD -- discuss the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires.  I'm also disturbed by IDONTLIKEIT charges such as "not enclyclopedic" or flip statements such as "suspicions of something or another" which suggest that as with some other of these hasty AfDs, the nom didn't read the article.   Ravenswing   04:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, well known and widely discussed in the Czech Republic for his activities in the MUS. It would be better to create an article about the controversial privatization of the company, similarly as on cs:wiki (see cs:Kauza Mostecká uhelná), but the article doesn't exist, so I !vote keep, at least for the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2014 (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.