Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jára Cimrman


 * 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 and rewrite. PeaceNT 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jára Cimrman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a fictional character that is written as if the character was a real person, which violates guideline on writing about fiction. The article does not make distinctions between real world facts and fictions. The only indication that this article is about a fictional character is form its lead alone. Because the article is intentionally written as if the character was real, it clearly invocation of Wikipedia's core policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. Also, because the article does not use any sources, it strongly implicates that the entire article is original research. And lastly the articles maintainers have stated that one must understand the Czech meme that spawned the character before one understands the article, which means the article doesn't do its job. I tagged the article to allow a chance for the maintainer to clean it up and bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies, but their statements indicate that they are not interested. Which is demonstrated by comments such as The "talking about him as he is real person" is exactly the point. --Farix (Talk) 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC) If you find something an original research, please tag it with the fact/citation needed mark. I am sure valid reference(s) can be added. Please take into consideration, that Jára Cimrman is so popular in Czech Republic (the article actually hints it too) that something you might see as original research was – perhaps wrongly – taken as common knowledge by the article maintainers. Again such errors are to be repaired and not the whole article deleted. Excuse me but from my point of view it seems you are just making your little revenge, because the article maintainers haven’t accepted your changes, changes you haven't even bothered to explain and/or discuss on the article’s talk page. (Forgive me if not, but take a look at the history of the article. You made a minor edit in the article for the first time then after it is reverted you nominate if for deletion the second day :-s.) --Rikapt 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Neutral There is a grey line between actual biographies of actual people and fictional characters, and I always run into that when I am tagging for the WPBiograph Project. The article needs references, definitely. I am on the fence about whether to delete it, however.
 * Keep The whole Jára Cimrman “phenomenon” was created as a form of artistic mystification. I found it legit in the context if the artistic style and particularly this piece that the distinction - even in encyclopedia - between what’s real and what is just fiction is not that obvious as in real persons or evidently fictional characters cases. Nevertheless the distinction is still clear in the article. If you think it’s not in some parts, please indicate them, so they can be eventually reworded. But deleting the whole article is overreaction.
 * Please assume good faith. I attempted to tag the article as needing cleanup, specifically because it doesn't make distinctions between fiction and fact because. However, the tag was twice reverted and I was "told off" by one of the editors to not edit the article further if I didn't understand the content. The article is in serious need of a cleanup, but with that kind of attitude from the editors maintaining the article, it's not going to happen. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, in-univerise PoV is not accpetable. A new article with a proper encyclopedic tone could later be created, if warrented. DES (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - in the article is clearly explained that J.daC. is fictional chracter; and playing the game on his real existence is part of his characterization. Actually, he was nearly elected Greatest Czech, but electoral fraud of Czech TV (stating that fictional persons are not eligible to contest, while nothing in this manner was in rules of contest) excluded him from contest. --Pooh-winnie 16:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand your frustration and I share your concerns with the article, but AfD is not an appropriate venue to make ultimatums to bully editors into fixing problems. The article has clearly established the notability of its subject. --Sneftel 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, based on the comments from Samohyl Jan on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, there is little chance that this article will receive the needed cleanup. From my impression of his comments, he and other Czech editors will revert such attempts at bringing the article within lines of Wikipedia's policies. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Following Wikipedia policies yourself would be a good start. If you feel like discussion on the article's talk page has failed, file an RFC. Deletion isn't going to solve anything. Besides, you've said yourself that the subject deserves an article. Do you think that the current crop of Czech editors are going to be detonated by this deletion? Or do you plan to have the article re-deleted every time someone puts in an edit you don't like? --Sneftel 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I will cite WP:SNOW as Samohyl Jan comments and Jan.Kamenicek actions strongly indicates that no cleanup will likely take place. But at the very lease, the cleanup tags should be restored and not removed until actual cleanup and rewriting of most of the article does takes place. --Farix (Talk) 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's fine. But AFD isn't going to make it happen. --Sneftel 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep User:Rikapt said it all. --mj41 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable, integral part of Czech culture. I am a bit sorry I started this havoc just for the sake of spoiler example, ah well. As for those comments that say a better job could be done, trust me, it may be hard to tell unless you know what is it all about (the current Wikipedia article explains a lot, and if it is not enough, please indicate the parts you don't understand). Samohyl Jan 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability does not excuse the article form violating other Wikipedia standards and policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. As for this comment, I looked at the articles talk page and saw no consensus to place the spoiler tag. (Two people agreeing with each other does not form a consensus.) Also this justification about the spoiler tag is about as loopy as they come. Just because non-Czech don't know he is a fictional character, it will ruin the surprise to them when they find out the truth when they read the article. And finally, you make a weak comparison to Forest Gump, which doesn't work because the latter makes a clear distinction between it facts and the fiction of the movie character. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I see it, the notability is only thing relevant for AfD. My original comments "if you don't know, don't touch" meant: How can you judge NPOV or OR in the article, if you don't know the subject better then what the Wikipedia article says? I explained why I am pro-spoiler in this case on Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler already, and will put link to that debate in talk page (and imho, the spoiler doesn't hurt anyone). But anyway, I always tried to be neutral party in the debate, and thus trying to save the previous version against people who may be confused by the Cimrman phenomenon (the article should make you unconfused, but again, you cannot judge it correctness just on the basis of article itself alone, therefore, if you haven't known about Cimrman before reading about him on Spoilers page, you should probably not to try/ask other people to "fix" it). Samohyl Jan 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD process is based on more then just notability. Articles with serious problems with original research, POV issues, and/or is largely comprised of statements that cannot be verified through independent reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but the editors are cautioned to eliminate the in-universe perspective and rewrite the article encyclopedically. Wikipedia is not and should not be part of this game. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, see my comments to Sneftel --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep deletion is an innapropriate method of improving an article imho DDB 11:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:OR, WP:A, and others. If kept, complete rewrite is needed to distinguish clearly between fact and fiction. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know about the article's notability, but the problem here seems to be with the editors of the article and not the article itself. Might I suggest a temporary topical ban for those who continue to remove the in-universe tag? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: doubtlessly notable per the media coverage; the only problem is with some edit(or)s approcach, but not the existence of the article as such. --Malyctenar 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Do you actually think this article would confuse someone into believing Jára Cimrman is not fictional (and it states that quite clearly in the lead, so I don't see a problem). When you look at Forrest Gump, you don't see complaints about fiction mixing with reality. Well, for Czechs, Jara Cimrman is sort of Forrest Gump, thanks for understanding.
 * Keep: it is possible to delete in-universe parts only (or revert to older version). Out-of-universe parts are right (i mean). In-universe parts are strongly based on theatre palys - it is possible to rewrite or delete it. --Postrach 12:36, 30 May 2007 (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.