Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/František Šmahel


 * 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) Armbrust The Homunculus 17:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

František Šmahel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced advert. I tried to A7 this and has prodded it. Both tags have been removed. Laun chba  ller  13:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  13:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep seems notable per having published a large number of works. Don't see how this 2 sentence article could be considered an advert. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an advert when I saw it. I wiped an entire section of pure advertising which disagreed with and subsequently restored.--  Laun  chba  ller  16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Extensive references list of offices, achivements and publications in the corresponding articles in the Czech and German Wikipedias at cs:František Šmahel and de:František Šmahel. I have restored this information to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please put your comments at the bottom. To an independent editor, having this comment above 's would read that you restored the article to a two-sentence state!-- Laun  chba  ller  16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no independent sources. Being a prolific editor does not make one notable. The claims about the subject would make the subject notable if only they were properly sourced. I'm confident the article in Czech Wikipedia can be improved. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 14:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment No opinion on notability, but this is pretty much a copy-paste from the English version of this. (Click on the EN icon at the upper right corner of that page. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 17:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How the hell did that last 90 months? Those revisions need to be oversighted. I've removed the offending content, all an oversighter needs to do is oversight every revision except for my most recent one.-- Laun  chba  ller  19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've WP:REVDEL'd them. I don't think the stronger step of oversight is necessary. All the version history (without the text of the revisions) should still be visible to anybody. And if any participants here want to read the more detailed bio before it was cut back to a non-copyvio version, please follow EricEnfermero's instructions above — it really is essentially the same, and the link is clearly marked as copyright with a terms of use link that says "All rights reserved". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought they were the same - thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. (Re User:filelakeshoe's earlier comment): Publishing many works is explicitly not one of the WP:PROF notability criteria. And Google scholar citation counts (one of the most frequent means of judging notability here) are doubly unhelpful for someone who publishes in the humanities in Czech. But he seems to have picked up a large number of awards and learned society fellowships, enough for both criteria #C2 and #C3 of WP:PROF, and his journal editing work and presidency of the Czech Learned Society also make a case for criteria #C8 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of the most important Czech medievalists, in 2013 the Government of the Czech Republic awarded him the prestigious Czech Head Award, according to Czech Television. He also frequently appears in the mainstream media, (Czech Radio),  (Lidové noviny),  (Reflex) etc. Speedy keep, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per information given by the commenters immediately above. I hope this information makes it into the article as well! -- SCZenz (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A simple check on the Google scholar link above indicates that he has written a number of books and that these are widely cited. This is quite enough for the article to be kept.  However it needs to be tagged as a stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep I can't judge articles in the Czech WP, but I can in German, and the article in the German WP is fully convincing with respect to notability. The German WP is almost always more demanding with respect to notability than we are, and I consider it rash to nominate for deletion an established article there without very good reasons. They do use sources differently (for example, they almost always refer to  outside lists of publications instead of providing one) but the article there at present has at least one newspaper source used to support notability in the same manner we do. With respect to notability as a professor, in  addition to citations,  the editorship of a relevant vol. in Monumenta Germaniae Historicais an indication of his being an expert in Hussite studies. It was specially remarked upon in this connection in the deWP article.
 * I am, btw, not that certain about the removal of the entire CV as copyvio--the part which is a list of publication is not copyrightable, and can be restored. As his CV, the link at least should have been retained. However, the main content of the article can be replaced without using the rest of the copyvio simply by translating the German.
 * I am however certain on reading the article at the time it was nominated that it was not the least an advertisement. A plain CV, without using terms of praise or importance, is not an advertisement. (True, it's not a suitable WP article as it stands, and will at the least require rewriting--but that's another matter) There are academic bios submitted here that I do regard as promotional, sometimes enough to be G11, but this is not one of them. I note that the nom. here also tried to delete the article as A7,which is really absurd: saying someone is the heado f a dept at a major European university is an unmistakable claim of importance if there ever was one. . I suggest a snow keep.  DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 13 August 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.